"Mr. Staples" said it so it's True! -- THAT WAS EASY.
Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Sure af - Keep saying it. You persuade no one that I can see.
MAYBE IF YOU TRY ALL CAPS...
He seems to be of great insight! :) (friendly jab there)
"Mr. Staples" said it so it's True! -- THAT WAS EASY.
Your judgment of those who disagree with your false use of facts noted.
Best
You reply with questions. But they are not questions that answers to my questions.
I answered this question of yours:
**Do you affirm or deny that Mary is the mother of “God with us” according to the scriptures ?**
...with this question:
Do you affirm or deny that Jesus Christ said: “..The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”?
If you would have answered with a question like this:
Does all the fullness of the Godhead dwell in Jesus Christ?
...you would have affirmed, in a question, that the Father dwells in Jesus Christ,.......because Colossians 2:9 makes that clear.
**Do you affirm that Jesus is Emmanuel ? Do you affirm that Emmanuel means “God with us?” Do you affirm that Jesus is “God with us?”**
Since all three questions are basically asking the same thing, I will answer with one question?
Is Jesus Christ “God with us”, without the Father in him?
You deny the Trinity; you are involved in Mormonsm, JW, Armstrongism, Christadelphianism, Oneness Pentecostalism, Christian Science, Nification Church, or one of the other Protestant devolved cults that denies the Trinity.
“The scripture is clear.”
You are so right and it does NOT contain any of the following truths.
“Devotion to you, O Blessed Virgin, is a means of salvation which God gives to those whom he wishes to save.” -Saint John Damascene, Father and Doctor of the Church, 676-787 AD
”It is impossible to save one’s soul without devotion to Mary and without her protection.” -Saint Anselm, Archbishop and Doctor of the Church, 1033-1109 AD
”Not only do they offend thee, O Lady, who outrage thee, but thou art also offended by those who neglect to ask thy favors . . . He who neglects the service of the Blessed Virgin will die in his sins . . . He who does not invoke thee, O Lady, will never get to Heaven . . . Not only will those from whom Mary turns her countenance not be saved, but there will be no hope of their salvation . . . No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.” -Saint Bonaventure, Cardinal-Bishop and Doctor of the Church, 1221-1274 AD
If you believe any of these statements then you are left to this Scripture of Truth.
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Which denomination are you affiliated with ? Do you also deny the Trinity ?
Both questions are irrelevant. By sticking with Sola Scriptura we are on firm footing. How many times in the Bible does it say not to add to or take away from what is written? Or if anyone, even an angel of light, were to to bring any other gospel, other than what we have preached, let him be accursed? Do any of those warnings mean anything to you?
Correct (congrats) but so is the logic regardless with Anne being the grandmother of God, and so forth back to Eve.
(here's a link to an NON-Catholic site with information of Mary's mother,
Many if not most of the Orthodox would object to you denying they are Catholic. At least they seem to prefer Theotokos.
The only "logic" on this thread from people objecting to the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was God when he was in Mary's womb
And where was I objecting to that, versus an extrascriptural misleading unqualified term?
making bizarrely illogical arguments with "logic" that would conclude: President Obama's mother must be "greater" than the President,
Wrong, and an illogical argument, since you are confusing a name which denotes a unique being due to possessing an uncreated nature with title of an elected position which has nothing to due with nature. If the objection was to Mary being called the mother of the Savior then your logic would be valid.
A fireman's mother must have existed "before there were firemen", since she's recognized as the mother of one.
Likewise invalid, as this also is the title of a occupation, not a title denoting a unique nature no one can ontologically be the mother of. If a ewe gave birth to a lamb that was God in nature who created the sheep, but was incarnated thru the ewe, and the latter was called the Mother of God, then it would be logically analogous to Mary being called "Mother of God," and just as misleading.
Angie Jolie must have "created" her Cambodian son that she adopted, she since is universally accepted as his mother.
But she well could have authored his Cambodian nature thru a Cambodian father, yet the son could not have created his mother, while Mary could not have contributed something to the Divinity of Christ, yet who made her.
In addition, adoption of humans is a common thing, nor is she uniquely titled "Mother of Cambodian," and while her contributing to his racial nature would not be unique, yet a qualifying aspect to her being described as his mother would often still be in order for adoption. And if so, then how much the more with the unique title "Mother of God." But instead of even that, man should respect the use of terms which the Spirit uses in describing Deity.
In a rare instance of a mild form of reproof of excessive Marian exaltation, no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “Co-redemptrix” “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings”
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” - God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
What Ratzinger reasoned based upon the "language of Scripture and that of the Fathers" applies to Mother of God" as concerns the language of Scripture.
In short, none of the "logic" objecting to the use of the term "Mother of God" is used in the real world for any motherhood
Rather, it is your analogies that manifest illogic.
Any Christian can understand that God prepared a body by means of Mary's womb. Jesus already existed prior to the body He occupied, as John chapter one details.
The Bible tells us God made Jesus the man a little lower than the Angels, to occupy that body, that human four dimensional limitations body prepared in Mary's womb:
Young's Literal Translation)
Hebrews 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Because Jesus existed BEFORE He occupied that body prepared for Him, Mary is NOT the mother of God, she is the blessed Mother of the body God as Jesus took up to complete His mission of our Salvation High Priest and Sacrifice and thus our Savior/Deliverer.
The Bible makes clear that Jesus is of/from the I AM (John 14), existing before God prepared a body for Him. The Bible does not tell us upon which day in the gestation womb life of the water world Jesus came into that body to dwell for little over three decades, but it is clear that He existed before that occupying and still exists with that body transformed into a physical body fit to live in eternity. That He no lives in that body eternally in no way negates that He lived in eternity prior to taking up residence int hat body, so Mary is not the Mother of God, but she is the Mother of the body PREPARED BY GOD FOR JESUS TO OCCUPY.
Meant to ping you to the above
“so Mary is not the Mother of God, but she is the Mother of the body PREPARED BY GOD FOR JESUS TO OCCUPY. “
+1
PS - as we know, this isn’t to the Roman denomination, about logic. It is ultimately about elevating Mary above all humanity and making her into a demigoddess, which they’ve done.
We have to be careful not to be saying that Jesus had 2 natures, one divine and one human. It leads very easily into some of the gnostic misunderstandings. Jesus is and always will be the unique union of the divine and the human.
I understand our protestant urge to prevent Mary from being worshipped, but I really have no problem with her carrying from the moment of conception both the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ.
We need to draw back from our fear of Mary and embrace her as a huge, willing servant of God whom all generations will call blessed.
By no means should that lead to worship, for scripture is clear: Worship God. Respect, honor, and even wonder are just fine, in my opinion.
Ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτὸν, ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον 66 τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας· πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν δἰ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα ,68 ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστόν, υἱόν, κύριον, μονογενῆ, ἐκ δύο φύσεων [ἐν δύο φύσεσιν] , ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως , ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον· οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπὸστασιν συντρεχούσης, οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον ἢ διαιρούμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν· καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσε καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν καραδέδωκε σύμβολον.
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures,inconfusedly, unchangeably,indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
The 4th Ecumenical Council was held at Chalcedon in 451. Any tdaching on the nature of Christ which departs from this has been heresy for nearly 1600 years.
For those who believe the scriptures, it couldn't be any other way...
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.