[Tj3]

Tj3,
You and I have been through that before an I provided several bible passages that show that Mary was/is the mother of God the Son.

Note that you change it from being "mother of God"?

She was the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh.

You however rejected what the bible said.

Really? Show me where the Bible says that Mary is "mother of God".

And it is just your opinion that Mary being the mother of God gives her divine status.

Scripture tells us that no other human but Jesus was sinless, therefore Mary would have to be a god.

[arcura]

ScottRC,
Regarding Mary the mother of God that was another excellent and accurate post.

[ScottRC]

As I have indicated before, my beliefs are not driven or directed by the teachings of any denomination or the councils of that denomination.

I remember, but to attack the teaching, it might be a good idea to actually try to refute the ACTUAL teaching instead of attacking a straw man.

The problem here is that to correct one error, the denomination chose to go too far the other way, creating a second error.

I still don't understand what the "second error" was... since the quote I provided should have made it quite clear your objection to the term is not based upon the facts of the matter.

The problem is that when you use extreme terminaology like this, regardless of whether the original intent was not so radical, over time we end up with people today who teach that Mary was indeed the mother of God, which requires that she be a god in her own right and pre-exist God..

I can agree with you in principle here... I'm sure you've noticed I'm not a huge fan of Mariology.

It does not matter how. It is still contrary to scripture, and scripture still says that ALL have sinned except Jesus. There are no other exceptions, therefore one would have to be God to have not sinned.

I understand your objection... but don't agree with your conclusion.

Are you aware of that he was declared a doctor of your denomination?

Yep... doesn't mean he never made mistakes.:D

[Tj3]

I remember, but to attack the teaching, it might be a good idea to actually try to refute the ACTUAL teaching instead of attacking a straw man.

I know what the actual teaching is, and I also know what the term "Mother of God" means. If you do not mean "Mother of God", then don't say it. As you will see on here, there are enough folk around who will defend the position that Mary was indeed "Mother of God".

I can agree with you in principle here... I'm sure you've noticed I'm not a huge fan of Mariology.

I have noticed some positives in your view re: Mary.

I understand your objection... but don't agree with your conclusion.

How can you conclude that a second person was sinless when scripture says that there was no other who was sinless? That is a contradiction.

Yep... doesn't mean he never made mistakes.:D

I can find very little that he wrote which is not blasphemous.

[ScottRC]

I know what the actual teaching is, and I also know what the term "Mother of God" means. If you do not mean "Mother of God", then don't say it. As you will see on here, there are enough folk around who will defend the position that Mary was indeed "Mother of God".

Hey, I respect your right to use whatever terms you are comfortable with... but most people I chat with are educated enough to understand what Theotokos means:

Jesus was/is God... Mary was/is his mother.

I'm pretty sure when Jesus introduced Mary he didn't refer to her as "the mother of my human nature" but as his mother... the mother of God incarnate Jesus Christ... the mother of God/Theotokos.

If someone can't grasp this concept and think it means Mary has sex with God or is divine, well... I'll just say that I don't have time for that.

I have noticed some positives in your view re: Mary.

Easy now... you may actually say something NICE to me... THE HORROR!:eek:

How can you conclude that a second person was sinless when scripture says that there was no other who was sinless? That is a contradiction.

This is better left for another thread...

I can find very little that he wrote which is not blasphemous.

My favorite:

My adorable Jesus, / it was not Pilate; / no, it was my sins that condemned You to die. / I beseech You, by the merits of this sorrowful journey, / to assist my soul on its journey to eternity./ I love You, beloved Jesus; / I love You more than I love myself. / With all my heart I repent of ever having offended You. / Grant that I may love You always; and then do with me as You will.

Peace

[Tj3]

Hey, I respect your right to use whatever terms you are comfortable with... but most people I chat with are educated enough to understand what Theotokos means:

Jesus was/is God... Mary was/is his mother.

Mary was the vessel through whom God entered the world, but was not the mother of God. That is where the issue is. If I said that I had a blue car, and then said that it is not blue but red because I like to call red cars blue - I suspect that you would say that makes no sense.

We cannot use a term which says one thing and then say that it means something else. Especially, as I said, when I have seen plenty of folk defending the belief that Mary is in fact Mother of God!

I'm pretty sure when Jesus introduced Mary he didn't refer to her as "the mother of my human nature" but as his mother... the mother of God incarnate Jesus Christ... the mother of God/Theotokos.

She was not the mother of God because she did not give birth to the trinity, nor did she conceive God.

This is a key point - who is God? Is God Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Easy now... you may actually say something NICE to me... THE HORROR!:eek:

I am nice to everyone.

This is better left for another thread...

If the topic of Mary being sinless is to be discussed on this thread, this is a critical point.

[arcura]

ScottRC,
Obviously, Tom Smith (aka Tj3) can not grasp the fact that the trinity is three persons and therefore the Word of God we call Jesus was conceived as a person in Mary's womb as the bible so says.
She did not conceive all three persons.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura).

[ScottRC]

We cannot use a term which says one thing and then say that it means something else. Especially, as I said, when I have seen plenty of folk defending the belief that Mary is in fact Mother of God!

Again, I agree in principle... but I use the term for the same reason the early Church did: it helps define a truth about Jesus ----> that he is God incarnate.

You do believe Jesus was/is God right? (Not being cute, but I've met quite a few non-Trinitarian "Christians" recently)

This is a key point - who is God? Is God Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

That's a VERY good point... worthy of a thread of its own.

If the topic of Mary being sinless is to be discussed on this thread, this is a critical point.

Fair enough... but I'm hoping we can come to some form of agreement on Theotokos first before we dive into that one.:D

[Tj3]

ScottRC,
Obviously, Tom Smith (aka Tj3) can not grasp the fact that the trinity is three persons and therefore the Word of God we call Jesus was conceived as a person in Mary's womb as the bible so says.
She did not conceive all three persons.

Then unless you are denying the trinity, she was not the mother of God. She was the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world.

BTW, Fred, ad hominem arguments do not enhances or validate the credibility of your position.

[Tj3]

Again, I agree in principle... but I use the term for the same reason the early Church did: it helps define a truth about Jesus ----> that he is God incarnate.

This came up several hunred years after the NT church and was a denominational council.

You do believe Jesus was/is God right? (Not being cute, but I've met quite a few non-Trinitarian "Christians" recently)

Yes, I most certainly do. I have debated many modalists and other non-trinitarians also.

That's a VERY good point... worthy of a thread of its own.

Yes, but in this case it is important because when we speak of Mary being the mother of God, who is God. It is Jesus only, or it is the trinity? Because though Jesus is God, if we say that God is Jesus only, then we have strayed from what the Bible says.

Fair enough... but I'm hoping we can come to some form of agreement on Theotokos first before we dive into that one.:D

I doubt that we are going to come any agreement other than possibly to agree to disagree.

[JoeT777]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be respectful or just a jerk.....

Jerk or respectful is a matter that's up to you. But, I've more often than not been described with more colorful language. Also, It's not my habit to leave one guessing whether I'm being a “jerk.” Seems to me your workings are wound a bit tight?

JoeT

[ScottRC]

This came up several hunred years after the NT church and was a denominational council.

So?

Yes, I most certainly do. I have debated many modalists and other non-trinitarians also.

You too? Wow... they are more and more of them these days... I have some questions I need some help with, I'll send you a PM later if I remember.

Yes, but in this case it is important because when we speak of Mary being the mother of God, who is God. It is Jesus only, or it is the trinity? Because though Jesus is God, if we say that God is Jesus only, then we have strayed from what the Bible says.

Again, I understand your objection... but continue to contend that Ephesus makes it quite clear we're talking about the second person of the Trinity only.

I doubt that we are going to come any agreement other than possibly to agree to disagree.

If we can do so without any polemics---- it is just fine by me.:D

[arcura]

Tj3,
Don't try to again twist what I say.
Mary conceived but one person of the trinity.
Obviously you can not grasp that.

[ScottRC]

Jerk or respectful is a matter that's up to you. But, I've more often than not been described with more colorful language. Also, It's not my habit to leave one guessing whether or not I'm being a “jerk.” Seems to me your workings are wound a bit tight?

That's up to you.;)

I would like to finally hear what you point was about Jerome... and if you found my comments about the "camel dance" helpful at all.

For the record, I'm just a DRE... not a professor... yet.:D

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Don't try to again twist what I say.
Mary conceived but one person of the trinity.
Obviously you can not grasp that.

Mary is then not the mother of God. She is the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh.

[Tj3]

So?

The early Church did not teach it, but rather a denomination of the church later on taught it. Just a clarification for accuracy.

You too? Wow... they are more and more of them these days... I have some questions I need some help with, I'll send you a PM later if I remember.

I am always glad to help where I can.

Again, I understand your objection... but continue to contend that Ephesus makes it quite clear we're talking about the second person of the Trinity only.

And for the same reason, I need to continue to object to the disclarity is the statement which has misled many.

If we can do so without any polemics---- it is just fine by me.:D

Polemics is Biblical.

[JoeT777]

That's up to you.;)

I would like to finally hear what you point was about Jerome.... and if you found my comments about the "camel dance" helpful at all.

For the record, I'm just a DRE.... not a professor.... yet.:D

That's up to you.;)
I would like to finally hear what you point was about Jerome.... and if you found my comments about the "camel dance" helpful at all.
For the record, I'm just a DRE.... not a professor.... yet.:D

Professor Scott (future tense):

If it's up to me we'll keep it respectful.

Yes, the camel dance was helpful. In paragraph 18? Of Against Helvidius, St. Jerome stops to make, as it turns out, a satirical remark about Helvidius' attempts to “dance” around the issue of Jesus having brothers. St. Jerome's piece is an unrelenting attack on the idea and the "camel" seems to add a bit of humorous context St. Jerome.

In my opinion, Against Helvidius starts with the assumption of an Immaculate and Virginal Mary, ante partum. It further suggests the “holiness” of Mary's womb, but doesn't necessarily couch it the same why I previously mentioned. And in the paragraph 21 (presented in another post St. Jerome suggests that not only was Mary Ever Virgin, but so too was Joseph.

… Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication… the conclusion is that [Joseph] who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

So, we have “expert witness”, who has testified based an objective analysis of the issue and determined that Mary was Ever Virgin. What I don't know is whether this view is doctrinal requirement of faith. I've simply always took it as a matter of fact.

JoeT

[ScottRC]

So, we have “expert witness”, who has testified based an objective analysis of the issue and determined that Mary was Ever Virgin. What I don’t know is whether or not this view is doctrinal requirement of faith. I’ve simply always took it as a matter of fact.

I as well...

[Tj3]

… Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication… the conclusion is that [Joseph] who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

So, we have “expert witness”, who has testified based an objective analysis of the issue and determined that Mary was Ever Virgin. What I don’t know is whether or not this view is doctrinal requirement of faith. I’ve simply always took it as a matter of fact.

JoeT

I have an expert witness also:

Matt 13:55-57
55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?" 57 So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house."
NKJV

Now all scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore my witness has impeccable credibility and was not just a witness to the events, but also a participant.

Your expert witness, in comparison was a man (compared to my witness who is God), spoke according to his personal opinions (my witness spoke from perfect knowledge) and your witness came along over 3 centuries afterward (my witness was there when the events happened).

[JoeT777]

In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following are selected thought from St. Jerome who argued vehemently that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:

17. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn't that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense.

Mary is Ever Virgin.

JoeT