Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary: Mother of God?
What Does the Bible say? ^ | 01/11/2012 | Bro. Lev Humphries,

Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7

Mary: Mother of God?

This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."

This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.

Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?

The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.

Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".

This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."

It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: blessedvirginmary; calvinismisdead; divinity; humanity; ignoranceisbliss; mariolatry; mary; motherofgod; nestorianheresy; nestorians; perpetualvirginity; theotokos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,351-1,4001,401-1,4501,451-1,500 ... 1,751 next last
To: one Lord one faith one baptism
>> are you confused also about the Sabbath and what it represented?<<

Which “Sabbath” would you be referring to? Would that be the Sabbath that was set up by God or man? Which Sabbath was referred to in the Ten Commandments? Does the CC consider the Ten Commandments null and void? Help me out here and maybe I can answer your question.

1,401 posted on 01/15/2012 9:45:27 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1384 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
..which is why I asked you to read Acts 8,9 and 10. It would be fascinating study, if you read it prayerfully. And would answer your questions about Peter and Cornelius and the Messianic Church of the Kingdom as compared to the Church the Body of Christ that Paul was commissioned to preach. BTW: that Church the Body of Christ IS the reason the "last days" that Peter spoke of on the day of Pentecost were put "on hold". Acts 8 would give you another clue. Then Acts 9 would open your eyes, as Acts 10 explains WHY, after Paul is saved and given his commission by the risen Christ, Peter and the 11 give to him the right hand of fellowship. While Paul preaches the gospel of the uncircumcision, Peter and the 11 REMAIN in Jerusalem and preach the gospel of the circumcision. Which is what Galatians Chapter 2 refers to.

Other than that, we are sympatico with Scripture...:)lol!

1,402 posted on 01/15/2012 9:46:06 AM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1397 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

I was under the impression that it might be ‘computer time allowance’ at a half-way house. Thank you for setting back on the straight & narrow road to Heaven.

Thank you again as I was having uncharitable thoughts.


1,403 posted on 01/15/2012 9:46:35 AM PST by gghd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1390 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
>>but that is only conjecture<<

As are many of the beliefs of the RCC so that fits right in!

1,404 posted on 01/15/2012 9:49:19 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1388 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; smvoice
>>He also led Christianity in Rome.<<

Proof from scripture please

1,405 posted on 01/15/2012 9:59:58 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1397 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Rashputin

Wish I knew how to do that:)

But, all I can do is type a hardy, heartfelt, BRAVO!


1,406 posted on 01/15/2012 10:06:05 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1382 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Logic doesn’t seem to be one of your stronger suits.


1,407 posted on 01/15/2012 10:26:25 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1347 | View Replies]

To: Jvette; Rashputin

Either we are warriors for Christ or else we are not.

1,408 posted on 01/15/2012 10:32:22 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1406 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Good picture. Indicates just how wrong-headed the warfare can get, when it's driven by rationalism, bitterness, etc.

Since they failed in their quests in the Middle East, at least they had the Albigensian and Waldensian necks to set their battle-axes upon later, eh?

Slaughter them all in the name of Christ! [what a travesty]

1,409 posted on 01/15/2012 10:39:14 AM PST by BlueDragon (on'a $10 horse an' a $40 saddle I'm going up the trail with them longhorn cattle c'm uh ty-yi-yipy-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; metmom; boatbums; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Lera; Quix; wmfights; ...

I am not sure if you are looking for a response your unreasonable unloading, but I see it as a very superficial broadbrush. Yet the subjects behind your complaint are fundamental and worthy of some analyzation and investigation, which I would try to briefly address.

In essence, they believe they've said the magic words, so now Jesus Christ is indebted to and obligated to them, and that they are in no way indebted to or obligated to Christ...In their view, they are the Potter and Christ is their clay.

While antinomianism has been a problem from before the Reformation, that sola fide historical overall marginalized works is clearly contrary to its overall testimony.

And while today a superficial form of Protestantism is increasingly manifest, taking upon the characteristics of the society in which it exists, this decreasing camp stands in contrast to evangelicals (yet, a remnant) who manifest more commitment to the supremacy of Scripture and core Protestant distinctives, and which is the type of faith I think is overall behind what is often contended for here. Rather than liberal Protestantism being a product of Sola Scriptura as the word of God after its historical Scriptural “tradition,” they evidence rejection of the Scriptures as the supreme authority and the word of God.

Meanwhile, contrary to your depiction, like liberal Protestantism, it is Roman Catholics who overall testify to “easy believism” being inferior to evangelicals in areas of commitment and doctrine. While this laxity is not official teaching, faith is know by its works, and this easy believism is what Rome largely effectually promotes by fostering confidence in her power and one's merit, and by her lack of any real discipline of abortion and homosexual, etc. promoting Catholics, in which she conveys that as long as one dies in the arms of Rome she will get them in, no matter if they evidenced impenitent basic moral beliefs that were critically contrary to Christ.

Therefore Roman Catholicism has two camps: the Traditionalists, some of whom go so far as the sedevacantist schism, and want the powers Rome once had as it took upon much of the form and means of the empire in which it was found, and seem to long for the days of the inquisitions, while the majority of Catholics who follow after the liberal interpretations fostered by Vatican II.

And while you can seek to relegate these liberals to be non-Catholics, yet these are honored in life and in death as members. And this necessary inclusion impugns the validity of your message, as unlike us, you do not simply preach a faith but a particular supreme Church as an intrinsic part of that faith, and thus what it officially teaches as well as presently effectually fosters is what you argue for.

As we've seen clearly in this thread, even denying the deity of Christ as it is spelled out in the New Testament doesn't matter to such folks.

As touched on above, rather than being characterized as denying such core essentials, as the deity of Christ, those denominations which have held to the Scriptures as supreme as the word of God historically have contended against such as deny them, as well, as against the traditions of men being made equal to the Scriptures by Rome, as the aberrations of both groups are the result of a shared practice, that of effectively making the church magisterium supreme over the Scriptures. And which groups from the Mormons to the Watchtower Society also do.

The Invisible Church of The Most High Self

Rather, while those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture recognize that the one true church only consists of born again believers, (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) yet such typically are manifest in known visible bodies, whether be Southern Baptist or Calvary chapels.

And as holding the Scriptures as supreme means as they also uphold the teaching magisterium of the church, they thus each have a higher magisterium over their own particular flock. And in which is all the power Rome effectively has, even if it presumes universal jurisdiction. And while such evangelical magisterium's do not presume to claim assured infallibility as per Rome, which is an attribute they hold is only given on Earth to Scripture, instead requires all teaching to be substantiated and warranted upon the weight of Scripture, so strong is this evidence as regards certain core teachings that overall one will be marked as a heretic if they deviate from them.

And thus while lacking a centralized administration, yet as said, like Catholics, evangelicals manifest a common consent to certain core teachings, while allowing varying degrees of liberty in other things. And which is also true in Roman Catholicism, although there is far more that Catholics can and do disagree on than the average one realizes or might admit to.

Therefore, while RCA's often charge that every Protestant is his own pope, yet in contrast to the pope, no one who holds to SS can presume assured infallibility, which the Sola Scripturist only holds the Scriptures are, and like the noble Bereans, (Acts 17:11) he seeks to prove all things by that which is proved to be of God; it being the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is established to be wholly inspired of God, (2Tim. 3:16) and which is abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims.

In addition, while Roman Catholic apologist often attack evangelicals based upon their reliance upon fallible human reasoning, however prayerful — an infirmity which the supreme magisterium of Rome asserts they are immune from when speaking in accordance with their infallibly-defined criteria — yet the Catholic himself makes a fallible decision to submit to Rome, which use of fallible human reasoning he also engages in when interpreting what Rome has taught, including which teachings are indeed infallible in which was are not, in which he cannot be absolutely sure.

Therefore both the Catholic and evangelical claim to have and assuredly infallible authority, but neither claim to be assuredly in fallible themselves.

In contrast, the type of assurance which Scripture promises the believer in the Scriptures, is not based upon the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, though that does not disallow that believers and the church can speak infallible truth, but the assurance promise therein is based upon conformity to the assuredly infallible Scriptures and its means of attesting to truth, especially to new revelation. And which is what Acts 15 and other examples testifies to.

That is all for now.

1,410 posted on 01/15/2012 10:51:13 AM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1362 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; MarkBsnr

who did Paul write to in Rome if the Church was invisible?

who did Paul write to in Corinth if the Church was invisible?

could it be your “version” of the church truly was invisible ( meaning it didn’t exist ) until the 16th century?


1,411 posted on 01/15/2012 11:00:30 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1399 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; editor-surveyor

i am referring to the 7th day Sabbath that the “prophetess” Ellen G White taught we are to keep.


1,412 posted on 01/15/2012 11:02:26 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1401 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan
Now, why on earth would I want to bother discussing the convoluted pontifications of a Jack Daniels infused former Catholic arguing from the La-Z-Boy seat of his self-annointed popehood? Maybe you can find a stuffed armadillo that has the time to take it all in.

In other words: don't confuse me with facts of the scripture, I've already been programmed by the CC....

1,413 posted on 01/15/2012 11:34:15 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1373 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
Do you not see the profound contradiction in the fact that on the one hand, protestants say that Jesus had siblings born of Mary, and then in their haste to deny the true meaning of this verse, they say that Jesus had to see to her care because it was the duty of the offspring to take care of the parents.

What happened to all the offspring protestants say Mary had? Why would Jesus, at the last minute, hanging from the cross, who cries out to God and says six other things that complete the fulfillment of His mission, suddenly think that none of His brothers and sisters would care for their mother?

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

You said this woman is Mary...Mary who in sorrow shall bring forth CONCEPTION and CHILDREN...

So what's up with that???

1,414 posted on 01/15/2012 11:41:37 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1379 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
>>I don’t believe that the Church replaced Israel.<<

Take that up with the RCC which evidently disagrees with you. Does that mean you are interpreting for yourself?

1,415 posted on 01/15/2012 11:43:12 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1395 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
>>who did Paul write to in Rome if the Church was invisible?<<

Didn’t you read the whole thing? Oh, you aren’t posting on your day of rest are you. I’ll help you. The “invisible church” can be a attending any one of the “visible” earthly organizations.

1,416 posted on 01/15/2012 11:47:11 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1411 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
>>i am referring to the 7th day Sabbath that the “prophetess” Ellen G White taught we are to keep.<<

Oh, then I don’t much care. I listen to what God says.

1,417 posted on 01/15/2012 11:48:27 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1412 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; CynicalBear

Were’re tired of hearing from the Mary/Ishtar worship prophetess “one Lord one faith one baptism” whose attacks are becoming vexatious.


1,418 posted on 01/15/2012 11:57:25 AM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1412 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; CynicalBear

>> “are you confused also about the Sabbath and what it represented?” <<

.
No, but you certainly are.


1,419 posted on 01/15/2012 11:59:39 AM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1384 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Works are for Pagan, antichrist, Mary/Istar worshipers.


1,420 posted on 01/15/2012 12:01:24 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1371 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

>> “what would the prophetess think about you posting on the Sabbath?” <<

.
She’s your god, not mine, so you tell us.

The sabbath is for man, not man for the sabbath. That is what my Lord and Savior said.


1,421 posted on 01/15/2012 12:04:07 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1353 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

1,422 posted on 01/15/2012 12:06:34 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1415 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
Logic doesn’t seem to be one of your stronger suits.

I have just as good a logic as anyone else...In fact, I have enough logic to realize that logic becomes invalid in the face of knowledge and experience...

You guys apply logic (or lack thereof) to scripture when the truth and facts are staring you in the face...

Logic belongs to man...Wisdom comes from God...

1,423 posted on 01/15/2012 12:10:12 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Either we are warriors for Christ or else we are not.

HaHaHa...Not with those weapons, you're not...

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

And as one would automatically know, your Catholic warrier doesn't carry a bible...He'll get stomped to the curb on the first wave...

1,424 posted on 01/15/2012 12:14:21 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: narses
My interpretation?

Just as the Old Testament is full of foreshadows of the New Testament (typology), Catholics believe the Bible is clear that the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation is not the historic city of Jerusalem. We do not believe that present day Israel is the same spiritual entity as the historic Israel before the time of Christ. After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51) which was God tearing his cloths. At that point, a transfer of authority happened and we believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel. [http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_did_the_catholic_church_move_to_rome_from_jerusalem.htm]

877 Likewise, it belongs to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character. In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as "the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy." Chosen together, they were also sent out together, and their fraternal unity would be at the service of the fraternal communion of all the faithful: they would reflect and witness to the communion of the divine persons. For this reason every bishop exercises his ministry from within the episcopal college, in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college. So also priests exercise their ministry from within the presbyterium of the diocese, under the direction of their bishop. [http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/877.htm]

1,425 posted on 01/15/2012 12:17:24 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1422 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

“worship prophetess”

Hunh...and here all this time I thought you were Kenyan, which makes about as much sense as the goofy continuation of
metaphysical references which are posted with some regularity by the noted hysterics on FR.

I want to rename this thread The Judithanne Catholic Warrior Memorial Thread.

I’d think she’d like that.


1,426 posted on 01/15/2012 12:18:45 PM PST by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1418 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

“My interpretation?”

Yep the odd views of a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical. Given that this is the point of view from which you view the world, why should anyone pay attention to your odd, often incomplete and often misread cut-n-pastes?


1,427 posted on 01/15/2012 12:31:12 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1425 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

1,428 posted on 01/15/2012 12:32:01 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1424 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Ellen White is my god, WHO KNEW??


1,429 posted on 01/15/2012 12:41:58 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1421 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

“I’d think she’d like that”

AGREED, she is missed.


1,430 posted on 01/15/2012 12:45:04 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1426 | View Replies]

To: narses

Why the attempt at obfuscation? I posted two sources from Catholic sites and you have still to show anything from them that refute or disagree with what the RCC is saying in those statements of what they believe and teach. If you have evidence that that is not what they believe or teach why don’t you post it?


1,431 posted on 01/15/2012 12:59:46 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1427 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Your trailer park polemics are frankly boring.

Your odd claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical. Given that this is the point of view from which you view the world, why should anyone pay attention to your odd, often incomplete and often misread cut-n-pastes?


1,432 posted on 01/15/2012 1:01:51 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1431 | View Replies]

To: narses

Yeah, that’s what I expected. /sigh


1,433 posted on 01/15/2012 1:19:54 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1432 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
 

daniel1212, I went to the link you provided. It basically stated you won't find Jesus claiming He is God but if you look real close, the Spirit of God will give you hints as to Jesus being God. That sounds more like the spirit of this world. Did God really say He sent a Son?

From the link;

This work, which is not exhaustive, documents the Divinity of Christ, that He is God, having the same nature of the Father (who is the Head: 1Cor. 11:3), possessing certain Attributes, Titles, and Glory that uniquely belong to God  

1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV 1900)

 

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

This is what is usually describe as a organizational chart. They are used to show how things fit in an organization. This example shows where we, and His Christ, fit according to God The Father..

I am the head of my wife and family.

Christ is the head of me.

God the Father is the head of Christ.

They use a scripture that shows the Father above His Christ to prove they are equal. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.

I then went to the home page; 

Welcome to Peace by Jesus

And we have seen

and do testify

that the Father

sent the Son

to be the Saviour

of the world

(1 John 4:14)

Do you believe this scripture? I do. It can't be any clearer. No matter how many hints you find elsewhere, you can't change the wording to say God sent Himself to be the savior of the world. 

Genesis 1:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

 

 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God the Father made Adam, and us, in His image and likeness as He did the Christ. Was Adam divine? Are we divine?

Would you please answer the question I asked in the post you responded to;

"Do you think a righteous God could condemn His creation, Adam and us, if He couldn't prove Adam and/or us could live a sinless life?"

May God the Father lead us to His truth, BVB

 

 

1,434 posted on 01/15/2012 1:24:33 PM PST by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1366 | View Replies]

To: anglian

Thank you.


1,435 posted on 01/15/2012 1:25:00 PM PST by Not gonna take it anymore (If Obama were twice as smart as he is, he would be a wit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1367 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

Funny you would say this, I was thinking yesterday that Judith Anne would have loved this thread. :)


1,436 posted on 01/15/2012 2:07:24 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1426 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Children, i.e. we, the brothers and sisters of Jesus.


1,437 posted on 01/15/2012 2:56:08 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Logic belongs to man...Wisdom comes from God...
>>They come from the same place.

Experience. Experience. You are beginning to sound like a liberal Modernist.


1,438 posted on 01/15/2012 3:09:14 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1423 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

All of us here know, you’re the only one that ever brings up her name.


1,439 posted on 01/15/2012 3:34:52 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1429 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings
I went to the link you provided. It basically stated you won't find Jesus claiming He is God but if you look real close, the Spirit of God will give you hints as to Jesus being God.

You are indicating that you only are seeing some some things to the exclusion of others. What the page expresses is that while Christ did not basically rent billboards declaring “I am God almighty,” He did things and said things that left no other conclusion than that He was God “manifested in the flesh,” and in studying the Divinity of Christ,we will see that His Divine nature is declared both explicitly and implicitly. That besides explicitly calling Him God, other titles, attributes, and glory that uniquely belong to God are attributed by the Holy Spirit to the Son. That said, as the "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and He will shew them his covenant, " (Psalms 25:14) so the question, “who is this Son of man?” (Jn. 12:34b) is revealed those who will receive Him for who He is.

1 Corinthians 11:3...I am the head of my wife and family. Christ is the head of me. God the Father is the head of Christ. They use a scripture that shows the Father above His Christ to prove they are equal. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.

You response indicates that you presume that the Father and the Son must be the same, or can have no positional/functional distinctions in order for the Son to be Divine, as WTC disciples imagine, but which is not the case, and which is the reason this text is pertinent, as it reveals oneness need not be absolute. You and your wife are one flesh, not exactly like the Father and the Son, but you are ontologically one and are both human by nature, and spiritually there is neither male nor female in Christ. (Gal. 3:25) Likewise the Son is of the same uncreated nature as the Father, possessing an ontological oneness (“light from light, true God from true God begotten not made, one in being” as the creed sums it), whose goings forth have been from old, even from everlasting, the same word used to state the same attribute toward God. (Mic. 5:2; cf. Ps. 90:2)

1 John 4:14: Do you believe this scripture? I do. It can't be any clearer. No matter how many hints you find elsewhere, you can't change the wording to say God sent Himself to be the savior of the world.

This also indicates that you have a basic misunderstanding on the Deity of Christ, which again, does not mean that the Father is the Son, but is one with the Father, and as the Divine Word of God, He is the visible manifestation of the invisible God, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. And is the one whom Isiah saw when was given the prophecy about making men blind, and thus the Son could say, “he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” (Is. 6:1—10; Jn. 34:bff)

And thus as God calls men to look to Him for salvation, as a particular attribute of Deity, so in the fullness of revelation we see that it is Christ men look to.

"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. " (Isaiah 45:22)

Gn. 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image..” God the Father made Adam, and us, in His image and likeness as He did the Christ. Was Adam divine? Are we divine?

This also is based upon a false premise, as nowhere does it say Christ was created, rather in no place is any creative activity attributed to anyone but the being called God, and rather than being created (Rv. 3:14 refers to position, not time), Christ is described as Creator.

"Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" (Isaiah 44:24)

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: " (Colossians 1:15-16)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. " (John 1:1-3)

Also,

..I am the Lord, and there is none else. " ..and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me." (Isaiah 45:6,21)

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. " (John 5:40)

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. " (Acts 4:12)

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. " (Hebrews 12:2)

Also of note is that six times in the Old Testament beginning in Genesis 1:26, Almighty God refers to himself, the plural (and it is my understanding that the Royal “we” is not known at that time), the last time being in the aforementioned text of Isaiah 6 (who should go for us?”).

Here and here are more on this subject .

"Do you think a righteous God could condemn His creation, Adam and us, if He couldn't prove Adam and/or us could live a sinless life?"

As for your premise that we must be able to live a sinless life — loving God with all we've got everyday for all our lives without fail — in order for God to condemn us for not doing so, while this may support the Roman Catholic tradition of the perpetual sinlessness of Mary, it is unknown in Scripture that anyone did outside of Christ (and Scripture evidences the Holy Spirit makes such exceptions manifest), although sin is not imputed when there is no law, (Rm. 5:13) and an age of accountability can be seen. (Is. 7:15,16)

What Scripture shows is that by one man's disobedience men were made sinners, (Rm. 5:19) — sinners by nature and in deed, as having inherited a sinful nature they thus acted it out, and have broken the law of God — and so all the world is guilty before God, and is in need of redemption on Christ's expense and righteousness. (Rm. 3:9-19)

I understand the objection to men being condemned for what Adam did, but see judgment and condemnation only being based upon what the sinner has done, which ultimately that of loving darkness over light; sin over Christ. And unless one is delivered over to sin, Scripture indicates that man can resist sin. (Gn. 4:7) And while men are unable to live a sinless life and avoid condemnation as sinners in practice, what ultimately condemns them is that of rejecting Christ, who can save them from their sins. Therefore, as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, having sinned by yielding to their inherited sinful nature, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, by yielding to the Holy Spirit, which draws all men to the Son sent from the Father to be the Savior of the world.

This does not mean that all men are given the same degree of grace, as that is God's prerogative, and He owes grace to no man.

I hope this answers your question sufficiently and I'm not sure if both issues related.






1,440 posted on 01/15/2012 4:22:53 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1434 | View Replies]

To: metmom; RnMomof7
God called her to carry the Messiah, He calls us to do other things. We all obey in what God calls us to do. She did her job, I do mine, others do theirs.

It doesn't make any one person any better than any other.

GREAT point.

Meanwhile, Scripture rejects the glorification of human beings on their own merit, especially to the wicked point of giving them blasphemous titles like "queen of the universe" and "mother of all mankind."

Mary is not anyone's mother but the children to whom she physically gave birth.

Some rituals and mindless traditions of the RCC are merely foolish and empty superstitions which reveal a lack of trust in God. However, the deification of Mary is a whole different kind of sacrilege where God's word implies the penalty is far more severe.

1,441 posted on 01/15/2012 4:35:17 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

you have freepmail


1,442 posted on 01/15/2012 5:29:22 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1440 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; MarkBsnr

eter and the 11 REMAIN in Jerusalem and preach the gospel of the circumcision.

Yeah, except they didn’t stay in Jerusalem the WHOLE time did they?

I guess you forgot that Peter went to Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea.


1,443 posted on 01/15/2012 6:20:48 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1402 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
.....while today a 'superficial' form of Protestantism is increasingly manifest,... taking upon the characteristics of the society in which it exists,... this decreasing camp stands in contrast to evangelicals (yet, a remnant) who manifest more commitment to the supremacy of Scripture and core Protestant distinctives,..... and which is the type of faith I think is overall behind what is often contended for here....

Rather than liberal Protestantism being a product of Sola Scriptura as the word of God after its historical Scriptural “tradition,”.... they evidence rejection of the Scriptures as the supreme authority and the word of God.

I agree with this and evidenced this over the years as my work took me to various churches along the way. More distinctive in some than others but the liberal mindset has definitely impacted the whole climate of the churches....and in many we see the members attempting to fight this off....generally a "visitor" does not see this but the Lord has his people within and they do share of the unrest once they see you are a Christian.

It's a mistake to say all Protestant churches are expereincing this liberal mindset...but yes a vast majority, especially the big impact churches.

1,444 posted on 01/15/2012 6:25:07 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

To say that the Church replaced Israel is wrong, and the Church does not say that. We are adopted heirs owing our sonship and salvation to Jesus, the Messiah, for which the Jews had long awaited and whom God promised way back at the beginning.

Those Jews who reject Jesus are have chosen to remain under the old covenant. Those Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah are under the new covenant.

There is no different covenant or dispensation from God to the Gentiles, it is one and the same.

God is unchanging and He told us through His prophets of the OT and we hear it from Jesus Himself, that the salvation Jesus brings is the salvation of ALL and that there is no distinction between Jew, Greek, Gentile, woman, man, slave or free.

God never withdrew His promises to Israel, they are fulfilled in Jesus and we are coheirs.

The Church says that this is the NEW Covenant of the NEW Israel, not a replacement of the old, but the PERFECTION of it.


1,445 posted on 01/15/2012 6:27:16 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1415 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

Yes Peter went to Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea. And preached to WHOM? The Jews. The gospel of the circumcision. That was commissioned by Jesus Christ to the 12. Cornelius is the first Gentile to hear the kingdom gospel since Pentecost. And I might add, Paul was saved in Acts 9, so there is a reason Peter is sent to Cornelius, a Gentile.


1,446 posted on 01/15/2012 6:30:26 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1443 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Roman Catholicism has two camps: The Traditionalists, some of whom go so far as the sedevacantist schism, and want the powers Rome once had as it took upon much of the form and means of the empire in which it was found, and seem to long for the days of the inquisitions,...... while the majority of Catholics who follow after the liberal interpretations fostered by Vatican II.

I agree but also see some who "borrow" from both sides of that aisle when they attempt to justify their beliefs. There are also those who are simply undecided in what they believe about Catholicism...to them the "title" is what's significant...all the rest is simply "lip-service" in their opinion...they are free to believe as they might choose and belief fully they are catholics and that's sufficient for them....which likely places them in the "liberal" camp.

1,447 posted on 01/15/2012 6:33:11 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “


1,448 posted on 01/15/2012 6:33:48 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1446 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. His book, What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John, carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church.13 Concerning the woman of Revelation 12, Father Richards writes: (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2831799/posts?page=1343#1343)

[24] The nihil obstat and imprimatur are a declaration that a book is considered to be free from doctrinal and moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the nihil obstat and imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.

As with nearly everything Catholic you have no idea what is meant by the things you try to use to “accuse” the Church.

More irony, in that Protestants continually harp about Catholics being unable to think or interpret Scripture for themselves, yet here YOU have posted proof that a Catholic disagrees with the Church regarding this verse from Revelation.

The interesting thing is that the Church, as it does with so much of Scripture understands that the both/and nature of the Holy Writ, something Protestants just can’t seem to grasp.

That is why the woman in Genesis and in Revelation can be Mary, Israel and the Church as all three fulfill all or some of what is written.

The WOMAN is seen at the beginning and at the end. Mary was at Jesus’ beginning and at His end.

Sorry, if these things are too deep for the one dimensional, black and white, Protestant.


1,449 posted on 01/15/2012 6:36:28 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1392 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

AS I said, protestantism is a SEA of confusion.

That is why the Church is called the Barque of Peter, as it was/is from there that Jesus calms that raging sea.

As we have seen during its 500 year history, protestantism is a raging storm of doctrine and personal theology with no rudder and that is why so much heresy like huge waves tosses it about.


1,450 posted on 01/15/2012 6:40:29 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1398 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,351-1,4001,401-1,4501,451-1,500 ... 1,751 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson