Posted on 01/24/2015 3:23:43 PM PST by NYer
Question (Q): So why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the writers to call her “mother of God”?
Response (R): Throughout the Gospels, the writers used the term Jesus when referring to Him. Jesus went, Jesus said, Jesus prayed, etc. In the same way, the writers referred to Mary as the mother of Jesus.
Q: So you can separate the nature of God but not the nature of Jesus the man?
R: This is the central mystery of our faith. How there is one God but three separate and distinct persons, each of whom is God, whole and entire. Are you not doing the reverse, separating the nature of Jesus but not of God?
Q: You say you are looking for answers but I’m sensing you looking more to re-inforce prior beliefs.
R: What I am looking for is an understanding of how someone can hold that Mary is not the mother of God. Admittedly, it has reinforced my beliefs.
It appears that the Nestorian doctrine is at play, but I can’t figure out how, with Jesus being God whole and entire, it can be said that Mary is the mother of the Son of God without also saying that Mary is the mother of God.
Maybe an answer to the following would help.
Matthew says that the angel of the Lord told Mary that she will give birth to Jesus because he will save his people from sin. This took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means God with us).
Luke tells us that the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will conceive and give birth to a son who will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High and will be called the Son of God.
Does this mean we can say that Mary is:
the mother of the one who will save his people from sin?
the mother of Immanuel (God with us)?
the mother of the Son of the Most High?
the mother of the Son of God?
If not, why not?
“my words are spirit” “the flesh profits nothing”.
So you are saying Christ’s flesh (Body and Blood) profits nothing.
“1. The Flesh does not grasp spiritual teachings - [Jesus said] The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63).
Having heard Jesus teaching on the Eucharist, most of his listeners ridicule it and will no longer take Jesus seriously. So Jesus indicates that their hostility to the teaching on the Eucharist is of the flesh. The flesh demands that everything be obvious to it on its own terms. The flesh demands to see physical proof for everything; it demands that it be able to see using its own unregenerate power. And if it cannot see based on its own limited view, it simply rejects spiritual truth out of hand. In effect, the flesh refuses to believe at all since what it really demands is something that will force it to accept something. Absolute proof takes things out of the realm of faith and trust. Faith is no longer necessary when something is absolutely proven and plainly visible to the eyes of flesh. The flesh simply refuses to believe and demands proof.”
Msgr Pope
You fail in your twisted explanation and you reject the Church that Jesus founded. I think you are missing many of the graces that God provides through His Church.
Are you a former Catholic that has rejected some of her teachings?
I'm shocked, but not surprised, how some Roman Catholics find it easier to defend the "sinlessness" of Mary over that of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ! Do they not realize that IF Jesus was a sinner, we are ALL still dead in our sins and there is NO sacrifice that can take away the sins of the world? Amazing!
John 6:63-63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
They are Christ’s words!
The Greek Orthodox would disagree with you as would everyone else NOT Roman Catholic.
Read post 1542
So you are saying Christs flesh (Body and Blood) profits nothing.
I think you missing the intentions of God’s words. You take it out of context.
Msgr Pope:
“The flesh wants to be in control rather than to have to trust in God. Hence it sets up its own observance, under its own control. And when it has met its own demands it declares itself to be righteous. Since the flesh hates being told what to do it takes Gods law and makes it manageable based on the fleshs own terms. So, for example, if I am supposed to love, let me limit it to my family and countrymen but I am allowed to hate my enemy. But Jesus says, no, love your enemy. The flesh recoils at this for unless the law is manageable and within the power of the flesh to accomplish it, the Law cannot be controlled. The flesh trusts only in its own power. The Pharisees were self-righteous That is to say, they believed in a righteousness that they themselves brought about through their flesh power. But the Law and flesh cannot save. Only Jesus Christ can save. The flesh refuses this and wants to control the outcome based on its own power and terms.
3. The Flesh hates to be told what to do For when we were controlled by the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (Rom 7:5)
The disobedience and rebelliousness of the flesh roots us in sinful behavior and prideful attitudes. The prideful attitude of the flesh is even more dangerous than the sins that flow from the flesh since pride precludes instruction in holiness and possible repentance that lead to life. But the flesh does not like to be told what to do. Hence it rejects the testimony of the the Church, the scriptures and the conscience. Notice, according to the text, the very existence of Gods Law arouses the passions of the flesh. The fact that something is forbidden makes the flesh want it all the more! This strong inclination to sin is in the flesh and comes from pride and indignation at being told what to do. The flesh is refuses Gods Law and sets up its own rules. The flesh will not be told what to do.
4. Flesh is as flesh does - Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:5-6)”
Said TC right after he said this about Muslims:
A religion that causes so much concern about your own salvation that you can't worry about the salvation of others is not worth being a member of!
Forces one to jettison the Great Commission.
Well, that was a non answer.<<
>>This is the central mystery of our faith.<<
I can see that it is.
>>Are you not doing the reverse, separating the nature of Jesus but not of God?<<
Just as I do the three natures of God. Separate and distinct persons just as your statement God is three separate and distinct persons. But you claim Jesus does not have separate and distinct persons. Catholicism says they cannot be viewed as separate and distinct thus they claim Mary to be the "mother of God". Jesus said God had forsaken Him on the cross. Did God forsake the God part of Jesus? In other words, did God forsake part of Himself?
>>What I am looking for is an understanding of how someone can hold that Mary is not the mother of God.<<
Yeah, so I thought.
>>but I cant figure out how, with Jesus being God whole and entire, it can be said that Mary is the mother of the Son of God without also saying that Mary is the mother of God.<<
Yet you can make the statement "there is one God but three separate and distinct persons". The disconnect in your thinking is striking.
>>the mother of the Son of God?<<
Then my mother can also say she is the mother of "the son of God".
Galatians 3:26 for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus,
Would you say my mother is the "mother of God"? I am after all a "son of God" per scripture. Your line of logic would say she should be.
AMEN! I know for a fact that God has used me to bring others to him and it is an absolutely blessing to me! I just LOVE being used by God for his Glory.
um...those were Jesus words not mine.
>>Having heard Jesus teaching on the Eucharist, most of his listeners ridicule it and will no longer take Jesus seriously.<<
Yeah, they took it just like the Catholics do. Only difference is that they knew it to be sin but Catholics don't care or explain away the sin in some fashion.
>>So Jesus indicates that their hostility to the teaching on the Eucharist is of the flesh.<<
And that is shown in scripture where? Msgr Pope just inserting something there? Jesus said His words were spiritual. He did not say they were physical or literal.
>>The flesh demands to see physical proof for everything; it demands that it be able to see using its own unregenerate power.<<
Yeah, like Catholics giving us all those examples of proof that the cracker really has blood in it.
>>In effect, the flesh refuses to believe at all since what it really demands is something that will force it to accept something.<<
Thus the "proven" miracles of the Catholic Church, the proof of "blood" in the host and the visible icons, statues, and rituals of Catholicism.
>>You fail in your twisted explanation and you reject the Church that Jesus founded.<<
I use the words of scripture. You are forced to use the words of the Catholic Church and men like Msgr Pope.
And I pray that God will open the eyes of Catholics to understand them.
Wrong. Life itself cannot die.
The thing that conquered death wasn't the death of God, but of a sinless man whom death could not hold because the power of death is then broken.
Death is the penalty for sin. When the sinless man, Jesus, died, that power was broken.
And He was names Immanuel, meaning what?
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (small stone) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (cliff, boulder, Abbott-Smith).
4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff (TDNT, 3, 100). 4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) a mass of connected rock, which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is a detached stone or boulder (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a solid or native rock, rising up through the earth (Souter) a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
Its also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,
and
A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm
Now you have been educated that you are wrong and now you don't need to continue believing the errors you have been taught by the Catholic church.
*No replies. *
It wouldn't surprise me what with the way some RC's spam the RF with Catholic threads and then spam their own Catholic threads with repetitive spam posts, posting and reposting the same thing every day so that they look like they're getting lots of replies when they're not.
That’s a lousy excuse for explaining away how and why Mary died even though she was (allegedly) sinless.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
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.