 |
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:35 PM. |