She's not the special human being Roman dogma makes her out to be
Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
It is that time of week again, where we talk about the Mary, the Mother of God. This is definitely the single most important title that Mary has. If someone gets this wrong, then they get the Divinity of our Lord wrong, and that means the whole plan of Salvation is just messed up. So let us look at this most important title.
Theotokos, God-bearer in Greek, is what the council of Ephesus declared in 431. It specifically says this “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.” Now just that statement alone proves the early Church believed that there was Authority given to the bishops to decide sound doctrine, Mary was a Holy Virgin her entire life, and that She bore God. However, we only have time for one today.
Now many times we will hear non-Catholics tell us that this title is nowhere found in Scripture, explicitly at least. However, they cannot themselves find a Scripture verse that says that all doctrine and dogma must be explicitly proven in Scripture. I bet they can never find that. This is a trap they set up for themselves and it is a very unfair double standard that they expect us to meet, but they do not have to. However, on top of this double standard is if we used that same standard, then the doctrine of the Trinity is thrown out, since it’s not an explicit teaching, but instead is implicit in Scripture. This double standard seems to cause more problems that it’s worth wouldn’t you say?
Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not. With that being said, Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another. The Traditions of men can contradict the Word of God, but the Traditions God left us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, are binding upon us, as we are to hold fast to Traditions. So then, what is the real question? The real question is, Does Scripture contradict the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, and is that doctrine found in Scripture at least implicitly?
Let us begin with Luke 1:43, where Mary visited Elizabeth. There Elizabeth exclaimed “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because Mary was the Mother of the Lord, who is the Second part of the Holy Trinity, Mary is truly and rightfully called the Mother of God.
We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.” Jesus is God. He was God when He was in the womb, conceived, lived, died, buried, resurrected, in the Eucharist, and in Heaven. The Messiah, who is God, was to be born of a virgin, according to Scripture. God was born of a virgin, and it’s right there in Isaiah, who prophesied of Christ birth. That means both Old and New Testament support the Catholic Doctrine of the Mother of God.
However, this may not be enough for some non-Catholics. Some say that Elisabeth called Christ Lord, and not God, saying that Mary was only to give birth to the human child, the Lord Jesus Christ. So then the question becomes, does lord here mean divinity or just authority? Let’s look at the context.
First let us look at 1 Cor. 8:5, which states “Indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the one True, Lord, as opposed to all the false ones, that the pagans who converted in Corinth were probably worshiping. So then, they would understand that Jesus is God. This holds true to the Jews who converted too, who would know Deut. 6:4 “Hear, therefore, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”
So then that brings us back to Luke 1:43. Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord. The Mother…Mothers give birth to persons, not natures, let us remember that. Mary did not just give birth to the human nature of Christ, she gave birth to the person of Christ. Christ personhood is Divine, it is God the Son.
Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)” Then in 2 Samuel 616 we see King David leaping in the presence of the Ark, just as John the Baptist did. Then we yet again see another parallel, which says that the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite for three months (2 Sam. 6:11), and according to Luke 1:56 Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth about three months. Then, we see that the ark of the covenant carried three items, manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod. These are all types of things Christ are, the Bread of Life, Word made Flesh, and our true High Priest.
Even knowing all this though, there are still those who would deny that Mary is the Mother of God. So then we have to ask, who is Jesus Christ to them? If Mary is not the Mother of God, then who did she give birth to? Many would say it was an earthly human lord, not God. So then, what does that make Christ? If Mary did not give birth to God, then who did she give birth to? Was not Christ God when He was conceived?
If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors, or both could happen, and that is the Denial of the divinity of Christ, and that one would have to say Christ is two distinct persons, and that he is not One. Both were considered heresy in the Early Church. Christ is one Person, with two natures, Divine and Human, which go together and are not separate of one another. If one denies that, the ultimately they are speaking about a different Christ, and St. Paul warns us about that problem, and to not to give heed to them (2 Cor. 11:4).
So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far, however, this is not true. Mary gave birth to the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2nd Person, who is still God just not the Trinity. However, we must never forget that each Person in the Trinity shares the same Divine Nature and is fully God.
One thing some still point out is that Christ is eternal, so for Mary to be the Mother of God she would have to be God. However the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. To better understand this let’s look at humanity. Parents give birth to a person, however they are not the author of life, and certainly did not give the child it’s soul. Thus is true with Mary, she did not give Christ His Divine Nature, though she was the Mother of more than just the human form of Christ, because she gave birth to a person, who was God.
She's not the special human being Roman dogma makes her out to be
What was I just typing about being catechized well?
There are several Old Testament persons who never died. Elisha was one, IIRC. Or was it Elijah? Moses, possibly.
Is Jesus dead? Is the man who heard Jesus say “This day you shall be with me in Paradise” dead? Was Jesus lying when he said that if we eat his body and drink his blood, he will raise us up to eternal life?
Who does that besides Luther and his ilk?
572 posted on 8/21/2015 9:34:33 PM by ebb tide
630 posted on 8/22/2015 9:56:47 AM by ebb tide
I have it on good authority (if Rome can be trusted) that he is not!
I mindread what you intended; though I didn’t comment ‘til not.
;^)
Wishful thinking in a court of law and reason.
Chapter and verses?
Oh. Wait a minute.
That’s NOT in the Bible you say?
Actually, doubts and disagreements continued among RCs until over 1400 years after the last book was written. See 686
But the Roman fallacy is that an infallible magisterium is essential to assuredly know what is God.
*Mother of God* means that the Godhead has a mother.
*Mother of Jesus* says that the Incarnation of God, Jesus, has a mother.
*Mother of God* says that deity has a mother, a beginning.
*Mother of Jesus* says that His human body has a beginning.
*Mother of God* leads to all kinds of theological error about the nature of God and the nature of Mary, as we have seen the fruition of in Catholicism where she is effectively treated as Godhead.
She’s given names of God. She’s given attributes of God. She’s given characteristics of God. She’s given power of God. She’s prayed to, bowed down to, and had plenty of people dedicate their lives to her.
And not a single bit of it justified or supported by Scripture.
Caths overall shun titles and caveats that would prevent what "Mother of God" too easily infers, while consistent with the reasoning behind it, since since Mary was stronger than the infant Christ, and Christ is God, then...
And since the Jews thru the Romans killed Christ, and Christ is God then...
Two is several?
And you don't even know!?!?
It was Enoch and Elijah.
Moses died and God buried him.
Which one is your favorite flavor?
I just noticed that you quoted Wikipedia. Nice try.
Why don't you answer the question? What Bible should Caths use in submission to their leadership?
Was Jesus lying when He said this?
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Jesus never commanded anyone to break the Law. He was speaking about spiritual consuming.
Well, you said "Luther was nuts. That’s common knowledge." But which depends upon if he supported Roman nuttiness.
However let us heard the words of the great Catholic historian Joseph Lortz on a certain Doctor of Theology (though he concluded he also was a heretic as per Rome):
"The problems of an adequate treatment of Luther are obvious from several points of view. First, Luther is an intellectual giant, or, to use a word from Paul Althaus, an "ocean. " The danger of drowning in him, of not being able to come to grips with him satisfactorily, arises from his tremendous output, but no less from his own original style... It sounds banal, but cannot be left unsaid: Luther belongs in the first rank of men with extraordinary intellectual creativity. He is in the full sense a genius, a man of massive power in things religious and a giant as well in theological interpretation. Because of this, he has in many respects shaped the history of the world--even of our world today." (Catholic scholars dialogue with Luther, Jared Wicks Loyola University Press, 1970; http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/04/defending-ohares-facts-about-luther_29.html)
Jesus knew the Law, since He was author of it. He knew the prohibitions found in Leviticus on drinking blood, for the life of the creature is in the blood. He knew the curse brought by the shedding of Abel's blood.
Jesus knew when He told them in absolute Truth (being The Truth, The Way and The Light) the work God requires is to believe on The One Whom God has sent for their spiritual deliverance from sin.
Yet Jesus told them something completely and utterly contrary to what He had issued for their law way back in Leviticus. He even emphasized it, to make it the more shocking to their dullness ... but it did not lead them to open their minds to Him, to His Presence, to the SPIRITUAL Feast He was going to bring to them. They applied it, the sarcasm, wrongly and walked away, not allowing The sword of Truth to open the division of the soul which leads to the broken and contrite spirit.
Catholiciism applies it, the sarcasm, and performs a pagan ritual to try and manipulate God.
Mormons twist it to believe they too can become gods by their faithfulness to institutionalized ordinances and their accomplishing of the Laws which expose a sinful nature.
THAT is divine sarcasm. Jesus used it on a milder level with Nicodemus, as recorded in John 3, when He said to Nic: "Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and don't understand these things?"
The most obvious clue to the statement being sarcasm (aimed at spiritual consumption not physically eating His body and drinking His blood, and the mischaracterization the Jews applied), is their questioning among themselves. Had they asked for clarification, from Him Whom they were trying to trap into taking the role of conquering king or get out of their way, what do we suppose Jesus would have taught them right then and there, something that would set aside their pride and open them humbly to accept His Divine work for them? ...
Jesus tells us with His clarification in the Upper Room, when He told His disciples to do the ritual/ the feast of Passover/ God's Time appointment of bread and wine IN REMEMBRANCE of His work about to be done the very next day, and given the absolute stamp of God's Promise approved, with the resurrection!
Why did the Jews turn away, rather than ask for clarification? Why do catholics insist on eating the supposed body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus crucified continually in the Mass? Why do Mormons refuse to allow God to be God in them, and instead seek to become gods? ... Pride. It is at the heart of all denial of God's sovereignty and Grace in Christ.
The Jews wanted to earn eternal life by following the Laws of Moses (law given by God through Moses). In other words, they pridefully believe they were able to be 'good enough'.
Catholiciism commands adherents to strive and earn eternal life by faithfulness to institutionalized rituals (of a pagan origin, insisting they eat the god of their religion), an obvious appeal to human pride in self.
Mormons refuse to bow to God's sovereignty and in their pride of works believe they can eventually measure up to a standard they believe causes God to owe them godhood, at best, celestial eternal life at least.
The broken and contrite heart God will in no wise turn away. The Jews refused to admit their error and be broken on the contrast. The Catholic refuses to give up on his striving and be broken on the simplicity in Grace, God's Grace in Christ's atonement finality. Mormons refuse to give up the notion that they can achieve what God has always said no man can accomplish, so the Lord Himself came to be with us and die for us and place His life in us ... not by works which we have done, but by His mercy, His Grace we are saved and made a new creation.
The divine sarcasm worked with Nicodemus, apparently. He was finally getting it by the time of the crucifixion. He paid for the expensive oils and spices to anoint the dead body of The Christ. I imagine Jesus blessed Nic with being one of the many who saw The Resurrected Jesus before His ascension.
More than a million Jews in Jerusalem did not get it, probably because their pride stood in the way, and they were slaughtered in 70AD when Titus destroyed the city. The Jews who did allow God's Truth to break them and make them a new creation escaped the city during the nine month Roman Army pause encamped about the city. History records the Christ followers left the city, probably because they believed Jesus's warnings recorded during the Temple Discourse (Luke 21) prior to the Olivet Discourse the evening of that same day (Matthew 24 and Mark 13).
Where exactly did I write that it was ?
No where
If you were paying attention on this thread you should of noticed (and cared) about the drift towards heresy by those who deny Mary is the Mother of God (with us) and assert she is only the mother of a body.
Xzins saw it and immediately wrote to shift that drift from the shoals of shipwrecked heretics.
Who are the Apostles of the Reformation and what holy scripture did the write ? None and zilch. You just acclaimed following a tradition of men started in the 16th Century after claiming you disavowed denominations made of men is, it seems to me, an incongruent position.
Just as the RCC has fell into horrible sin so has a lot of PC’s. Satan doesn’t care who he destroys he will bring all down who’s house isn’t built upon the Rock that is Jesus Christ. Revelation 2:18-29
In which year, decade, or century do you assert the RCC fell into sin and what one holy catholic apostolic church do you think replaced it ? You do assemble regularly in a faith community, correct ?
I am glad, from your last comment, that you do not (seem to) hold to OnceSavedAlwaysSaved (OSAS).
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.