 |
Note that you change it from being "mother of God"?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
She was the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh.
Really? Show me where the Bible says that Mary is "mother of God".Quote:
You however rejected what the bible said.
Scripture tells us that no other human but Jesus was sinless, therefore Mary would have to be a god.Quote:
And it is just your opinion that Mary being the mother of God gives her divine status.
ScottRC,
Regarding Mary the mother of God that was another excellent and accurate post.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
The problem here is that to correct one error, the denomination chose to go too far the other way, creating a second error.
I can agree with you in principle here... I'm sure you've noticed I'm not a huge fan of Mariology.Quote:
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 understand your objection... but don't agree with your conclusion.Quote:
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.
Yep... doesn't mean he never made mistakes.:DQuote:
Are you aware of that he was declared a doctor of your denomination?
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
I have noticed some positives in your view re: Mary.Quote:
I can agree with you in principle here... I'm sure you've noticed I'm not a huge fan of Mariology.
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.Quote:
I understand your objection... but don't agree with your conclusion.
I can find very little that he wrote which is not blasphemous.Quote:
Yep... doesn't mean he never made mistakes.:D
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
Easy now... you may actually say something NICE to me... THE HORROR!:eek:Quote:
I have noticed some positives in your view re: Mary.
This is better left for another thread...Quote:
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.
My favorite:Quote:
I can find very little that he wrote which is not blasphemous.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
She was not the mother of God because she did not give birth to the trinity, nor did she conceive God.Quote:
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.
This is a key point - who is God? Is God Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
I am nice to everyone.Quote:
Easy now... you may actually say something NICE to me... THE HORROR!:eek:
If the topic of Mary being sinless is to be discussed on this thread, this is a critical point.Quote:
This is better left for another thread...
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You do believe Jesus was/is God right? (Not being cute, but I've met quite a few non-Trinitarian "Christians" recently)
That's a VERY good point... worthy of a thread of its own.Quote:
This is a key point - who is God? Is God Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Fair enough... but I'm hoping we can come to some form of agreement on Theotokos first before we dive into that one.:DQuote:
If the topic of Mary being sinless is to be discussed on this thread, this is a critical point.
Then unless you are denying the trinity, she was not the mother of God. She was the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
BTW, Fred, ad hominem arguments do not enhances or validate the credibility of your position.
This came up several hunred years after the NT church and was a denominational council.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Yes, I most certainly do. I have debated many modalists and other non-trinitarians also.Quote:
You do believe Jesus was/is God right? (Not being cute, but I've met quite a few non-Trinitarian "Christians" recently)
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.Quote:
That's a VERY good point... worthy of a thread of its own.
I doubt that we are going to come any agreement other than possibly to agree to disagree.Quote:
Fair enough... but I'm hoping we can come to some form of agreement on Theotokos first before we dive into that one.:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 I'm being a “jerk.” Seems to me your workings are wound a bit tight?
JoeT
So?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Yes, I most certainly do. I have debated many modalists and other non-trinitarians also.
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.Quote:
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.
If we can do so without any polemics---- it is just fine by me.:DQuote:
I doubt that we are going to come any agreement other than possibly to agree to disagree.
Tj3,
Don't try to again twist what I say.
Mary conceived but one person of the trinity.
Obviously you can not grasp that.
That's up to you.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
Mary is then not the mother of God. She is the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The early Church did not teach it, but rather a denomination of the church later on taught it. Just a clarification for accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
I am always glad to help where I can.Quote:
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.
And for the same reason, I need to continue to object to the disclarity is the statement which has misled many.Quote:
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.
Polemics is Biblical.Quote:
If we can do so without any polemics---- it is just fine by me.:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Professor Scott (future tense):Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
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
I as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I have an expert witness also:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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).
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
Even if what you say is true (and I don't believe it is), omission from the NT doesn't mean there weren't any.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Mary was a sinful human being just like the rest of us.
Most scholars agree that adelphos means physical brothers, whereas if a broader relationship is indicated, the word which would be used is anepsios. The term is used here:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Col 4:10-11
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him),
NKJV
Further, we have prophetic testimony from the OT. In a Messianic reference in Psalms we find:
Ps 69:8
8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother's children;
NKJV
It is hard to argue that His mother's children are nor his brothers and sisters.
Tj3,
Mary was/is the mother of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
Whether you accept it or don't will not change that fact.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I agree that what I accept changes nothing, just like what you accept changes nothing. The same is true of all men, including each person on here, your priest, my Pastor, and your pope.
The truth comes from God's word, which is why I presented what God's word said. You presented your opinion (which, as we just discussed, changes nothing)
BTW, no one was arguing that Mary was not the mother of Jesus. You went further and argued that she was mother of God. That means something entirely different than simply being the vessel through whom the Son of God entered the world in the flesh.
Tom
Tj3,
I believe what the bible says about Mary and I have long ago provided the verses that tell us clearly that Mary id the mother of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
You have repeatedly indicated you don't believe that.
It is your right to believe as you wish.
In this case I agree to disagree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Mary had a baby whom she named Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
When did Jesus become "the Christ"?
Wondergirl,
Jesus became the Christ when he was conceived in Mary's womb as foretold in the Old Testament.
He has been The Christ ever since.
The Christ is the promised one, the Messiah.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
Jesus is eternal... there was never a time in history where he "was not".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hey Fred - is lying endorsed by your denomination? Because I never said any such thing and you know it. So you are deliberately and blatantly lying. What does scripture say about liars?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Rev 21:7-8
8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
NKJV
Be careful.
True. That is also true of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Which why Mary, while being the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world in the flesh, cannot be the mother of God. No woman ever conceived God in her womb, no woman pre-existed God, and no woman gave birth to the trinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Mary is indeed the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, but it defies both scripture and the laws of logic to claim that this makes her the mother of God.
From this article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
Ttp://www.theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm
Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?
It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary: "Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."
Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: "There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome." Who is this "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?" Of the Marys mentioned in St. John 19, 25 it must be Mary the wife of Clopas, not Mary the "mother of Jesus," as the Virgin Mary is never mentioned by any other title except as "mother of Jesus." Further, we know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James' mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary's sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: "James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James" (Acts 1, 13 [Douai]). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.13
One can safely state then that the "brothers" of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54 -57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins. This was St. Jerome's assertion in the early fourth century:
"Suppose that the Brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the Brethren of the Lord to be not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, his mother's sister."14
St. Augustine was no less strident in his defence of the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity:
"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): 'This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it...' What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this -'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,' except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - 'It shall be shut for evermore,' but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."15
It would be forcing credibility to believe that the Virgin Mary and Her older "sister" both had the same names and also had children with the same names. One can expect, also, that after St. Joseph died the Virgin Mary would have gone with Our Lord to live with or nearby Her older "sister," explaining why She was travelling with those mentioned in St. Matt. 12, 46. It is a clear example of the word "brother" being used to refer to a first or second cousin.
From this article:
It is also important to examine closely three major events in Our Lord's life referred to in the Gospels: (i) the return of the Holy Family from Egypt to Nazareth after the death of Herod; (ii) the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem after being lost for three days; (iii) Our Lord giving His Mother to the care of St. John at His crucifixion. Our Lord, according to tradition, was 10, 12 and 33 years of age respectively when these events occurred. Yet, never is there any mention of brothers or sisters of His being present, which one would naturally expect if they had actually existed.16
So, if all the brothers of Jesus can be traced to Mary of Clophas, then they must be Jesus' cousins and not brothers of the womb.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I understand why you believe this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Because an angel came and told Mary that she would give birth to a little boy whom she had to call Jesus. She didn't have intercourse with her husband, Joseph, and therefore was still a virgin. You lose your virginity when you have intercourse
We're discussing what happened AFTER the birth of Jesus (Thread title: Why was Mary called the "EVER virgin").Quote:
Originally Posted by pimp_mah_alpaka
So, it defies logic to claim that Mary is not the Mother of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Here is the logical syllogism.
1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
Now, if we put your belief into a logical syllogism it would look like this:
1. Mary is not the mother of God.
2. Mary is Jesus' mother.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.
And that is precisely why the Church declared Mary the Mother of God centuries ago. Because many were claiming that Jesus is not God:
Mary: Mother of God
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
Yes, you are right.
Excellent post.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
In logic one must always be careful to validate their premises.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
For example, your first syllogism has faulty logic. First, God is a trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not just Jesus. By making Jesus alone God, we have a defined heresy. Jesus is God, but Jesus is one person of the trinity.
Second, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary was not the mother of God's divinity which pre-existed her. Your syllogism eliminates the fully human part of Jesus, and thus comes up with the heresy of the early gnostics.
Show me where I said that Jesus alone is God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Nope. Your conclusion eliminates the divinity of Jesus.Quote:
Second, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary was not the mother of God's divinity which pre-existed her. Your syllogism eliminates the fully human part of Jesus, and thus comes up with the heresy of the early gnostics.
My syllogism does not eliminate the fully human part of Jesus. It makes clear that the human being born of that woman is God.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
Tj3 can not comprehend the fact that Jesus Christ is a person, one person in a TRINITY of three and prior to being born as a human being was The Word of God, as the bible tells us The Word became man.
Mary was His mother and therefore the mother of God the Son, Not God the Father, or God The Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Abuse and lies do not enhance your position. Can you not just rely on the truth?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:04 PM. |