C
Cristian_B
Guest
I have faith because I used my reasoning and logic. Faith is build upon knowledge.
- Status
T
T_More
Guest
So any bread and wine at any church will do? We have many denominations that believe very different things when it comes to the Eucharist. Is it not vital to have a proper understanding of this? 1 Cor. 11:27 warns of those that eat the bread in a unworthy manner would be guilty of profaning the body and blood of our Lord.
V
Vile_Servant
Guest
In other words, you don’t believe that Mary is the Mother of God?
C
Cristian_B
Guest
What do you understand by ‘Mother of God’?
V
Vile_Servant
Guest
A simple “yes” or “no” to my question would be appreciated, thanks.
I assume you know the meaning of the words “Mother”, “of” and “God”. If not, please consult the dictionary.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Yes and in the same way I believe that Joseph is the father of God.A simple “yes” or “no” to my question would be appreciated, thanks.
I assume you know the meaning of the words “Mother”, “of” and “God”. If not, please consult the dictionary.
V
Vile_Servant
Guest
Good, since you have stated your belief, then you should have no objection honoring Mary and Joseph.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
My question is: to what extent?Good, since you have stated your belief, then you should have no objection honoring Mary and Joseph.
Let’s say a man makes a statue in honor of a soldier who was supposed to be a war hero, but the truth is that the soldier wasn’t the hero the man claimed he was. Now that man makes a statue in his honor, and writes a book telling the story of what the man did based on the story the soldier said which was considered true. He even gives that man a title of ‘War Hero’. By the way, that soldier is dead. He makes a song in his honor. This soldier had a friend who was the great and genuine war hero. That friend of his was still alive, but for some reason they gave some of the merits of the alive friend to his dead friend, and some people were aware of that, but by twisting the original story they ‘figured out’ that the dead soldier had more merit than the original story told them he had. They began giving honor to the dead soldier for things he didn’t do. They said that the dead soldier shared the merit of the alive friend of his and true hero in the heroic act of which he was honored. Slowly people began to forget who was the true hero.
Now, is this a genuine form of honoring? Is honoring someone for something that they didn’t do or for a quality they do not possess just? Now this man was honoring, but when we honor someone for something that person did not do or because a quality that person does not possess, then we are crossing the line.
I agree that we should honor the earthly parents of Jesus, but honoring them only for what they did or for the qualities they do possess. If not, then we cross the almost invisible line and we do something unjust. God wants us to be just, just like He is just.
V
Vile_Servant
Guest
Martin Luther wrote: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them…Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born (in Bethlehem) but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (Weimer, The Works of Luther, by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v 7 p. 572)
Do you agree with Martin Luther?
C
Cristian_B
Guest
“In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God,”*
I agree. She was the mother of Jesus.
*
“so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them…”*
Of course, but I don’t know what ‘good things’ he refers to. And also this is a hyperbole.
“Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born (in Bethlehem) but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (Weimer, The Works of Luther, by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v 7 p. 572)
I suppose I agree with this.
G
Glassman96
Guest
Mary is the mother of Jesus in the flesh. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus refers to God as His Father. God created all things, including Mary. Jesus considers everyone that does the will of God, His brother, sister and mother. If God is a spiritual being with no beginning or no end, how could Mary be the mother of God? To say that, you are placing her above God and that Mary created God. So, are you saying that God, the Great I am… is the son of Mary?
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
Mary is not the origin of God, obviously. He preexisted her, He created her. However, the essence of His divinity entered into her womb along with the flesh, and came out of her and into the world. This was not the beginning of His divinity, obviously, it simple entered into her. His flesh cannot be separated from His divinity, or else He cannot be said to be fully human and fully God - they become two separate things, rather than being two natures of the same. Nor can it be said that His divinity only entered into Him after He was born.
P
Proallen
Guest
Says what?
P
Proallen
Guest
What did Christ use? Shouldn’t that answer your question?
P
Proallen
Guest
Why can’t we just say that Mary was the mother of Jesus who is God the Son? Isn’t that the most correct view? Otherwise if you say that Mary was the mother of God and God is the Trinity, then Mary would be the Mother of the Trinity which we know isn’t so.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Certainly without knowing god you can’t have faith in God, so knowledge of God is required in order to have faith in God. Read this article. I’ll copy some parts.
In John 6:69, Peter said to the Lord: “And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.” Writing in 2 Timothy 1:12, Paul said “I know him whom I have believed.” The Samaritans told the woman who brought Christ to them, “Now we believe, not because of thy speaking; for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).
In his book on the relationship between faith and knowledge, *The Concept of Rational Belief, * Dick Sztanyo remarked: Biblical faith is built upon a prior understanding (knowledge) of what is to be believed… Any conception of faith that severs it from its objective, epistemological base (foundation of knowledge) is at variance with biblical teaching! Biblically speaking, one does not believe that God is (or any other items to be accepted “by faith”): (1) against the evidence; (2) without evidence; and/or (3) beyond the evidence. Rather, one believes on the basis of evidence sufficient to establish the conclusion (1989, p. 3, emp. in orig.).Faith is directly linked to knowledge. Without knowledge (i.e., evidence), it is impossible to produce faith. Further, knowledge is critical in making faith active. Sztanyo has observed in regard to what he terms “rational” belief: This evidence enlightens the intellect which then makes a volitional commitment not only possible (since I now know what to believe) but also rational (i.e., I know what to believe)! Thus, faith is a volitional commitment of an informed intellect! Knowledge without commitment is disbelief (John 8:30-46; 12:42,43; James 2:19); commitment without knowledge is irrationality! Neither is a genuine option for a Christian (1989, pp. 18-19, emp. in orig.).
Remember that faith is a hope of/in the unseen, and not a belief without proof.
Third, surely people in the world who are not yet Christians, yet whom we hope to see become Christians, are smart enough to see through a ruse that asks them to “act like” they know God exists, to “act like” they know Jesus is His Son, or to “act like” the Bible is His inspired Word when, in fact, they do not know those things at all. Further, if Christians simply “act like” they know, when in reality they do not, why are they not hypocrites? And why is the Christian—who eventually will have to admit that he does not really know these things—any different from the agnostic who readily admits that he cannot know these things?
Fourth, any idea which suggests that faith is based on mere “probability” is at the same time tacitly admitting that there is some probability, however minute, that Christianity might just be false. In addressing this point, Dick Sztanyo has observed: To admit that Christianity is only probable is to admit the possibility that, in fact, it might be a hoax! Could you in your most irrational moment imagine even the slightest possibility of an apostle preaching the “God of probability” or the “God who may be”? …I want to insist that there is not a single item in Christianity, upon which our souls’ salvation depends, which is only probably true. In each case, the evidence supplied is sufficient to establish conclusive proof regarding the truth of the Christian faith (1989, pp. 8-9,11, emp. in orig.).
Now read yourself the rest of the article, because it is very interesting.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
If we said that we would be downplaying the divinity of Jesus. All three ‘natures’ of the Trinity are God - they aren’t three different beings that are totally separate. They are three natures of One God. If you like (sorry, don’t really mean to advertise here!) there is a link in my signature to my youtube channel - my latest video is all about this subject. You might find it rather interesting. I quote John Calvin (and though I don’t quote him directly in this video, I can easily get quotes of Martin Luther saying the same thing) to explain why we call Mary the Mother of God. Believe it or not, Calvin lays it out quite well. It’s rather surprising how many Catholic beliefs the reformers held about Mary, though they did reject her intercession they still considered her the Mother of God and Immaculately Conceived.
Of course you can say that Mary was the mother of Jesus. It is correct, but not necessarily the most correct view. To state the the Blessed Virgin is the Theotokos, is to recognise the incarnation, and that she carried in her womb the Christ, fully man and fully God. She indeed gave birth to God in that sense.
Jon
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
Very well said. As I state in my video, I think that Theotokos may be a better term to use, though it might be better yet to use a strict translation of it (Mother of God is a very loose one); something along the lines of the one who gave birth to God. Then again, I suppose that can equally be misinterpreted. We just have to stress that the meaning of it isn’t that she is the origin of God, or that she gave birth to God the Father. All we mean to say is that Jesus, both His Divinity and His Flesh, entered into her womb so as to enter into the earth.
- Status