If you do Not believe that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, than who do you believe Jesus Christ is?

[Dokimas]

I think your church will have a hard time evangelizing to non-Christians if you cannot claim that Mary is the mother of God. These non-Christians will rightly argue: “If you cannot say that Mary is the mother of God, you don’t believe that Jesus is God, then!”

You will have no way to argue that you believe Jesus is God.

You are wrong. I know from personal experience many times over. The subject has NEVER come up.

 

[PRmerger]

But Christ is begotten and Mary is His Blessed Mother, and if you deny Mary is the mother of God, you deny Christ’s divinity.

Incidentally, if you deny Christ’s divinity, then I suppose this brings the dialogue to a different plane.

Scripture alone, then, brings many many odd interpretations. Some can read the Scriptures and conclude things which were never taught by the apostles.

In this paradigm, one cannot use the Scriptures to object to anyone else’s dogma, for if you are free to interpret something that’s novel and not supported by 2000 years of Christian tradtion, then why can’t the other person? Someone may decide to read the Scriptures and claim that there are MANY gods, and that god resides in trees. And if he uses Scripture to support his view, you cannot object.

 

[StTommyMore]

You are wrong. I know from personal experience many times over. The subject has NEVER come up.

Since when should experience be the way at which we arrive at truth? I thing we would all benefit if we disregard this kind of thinking which grew out of the enlightenment.

 

[pablope]

Pmerger and Clamdigger

You really should actually READ about the Catholic Church before just jumping to assumptions. Actually, Joseph is honored in a similar fashion to Mary. We pray for his intercession and believe him to be very holy. We honor him as the guardian of Mary and Jesus.

But not the same?

You will need to explain to me how you can call her the mother of God and not deify her? This certainly sounds like a paradox…or is it a mystery?

Research the Nestorian Heresy. I forgot which CC council dealt with this, and this is where the Mother of God term was born, it was to fight a heresy.

 

[StTommyMore]

Research the Nestorian Heresy. I forgot which CC council dealt with this, and this is where the Mother of God term was born, it was to fight a heresy.

I believe it was either Chalcedon or Ephesus, but I am not 100% sure

 

[Christadelphian]

I have come to the conclusion, that entering into this forum to spread the truth has been unfruitful. It seems many minds here are to bigoted, and have warped scripture out of context to fit there own personal beliefs.

Even so i wish you all the best.

 

[Dokimas]

Since when should experience be the way at which we arrive at truth? I thing we would all benefit if we disregard this kind of thinking which grew out of the enlightenment.

So you blindly have faith that the CC is the one and only true church. You have no real experience (thus evidence) that tells you it is the one and only true church. Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.

Actually, why did Moses follow God’s commands. Objective experience at the Bush revealed God could be trusted. Over and over again God have proven He is trustworthy in human experience.

You don’t think what the apostles were able to do (turn the world upside down) had anything to do with experiencing Jesus as God first hand? Why did Jesus perform miracles?

Am I saying to base all on experiences, no. The devil gives experiences too. One needs to be careful but experiences are real and can lead to truth.

 

[StTommyMore]

So you blindly have faith that the CC is the one and only true church. You have no real experience (thus evidence) that tells you it is the one and only true church. Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.

Actually, why did Moses follow God’s commands. Objective experience at the Bush revealed God could be trusted. Over and over again God have proven He is trustworthy in human experience.

You don’t think what the apostles were able to do (turn the world upside down) had anything to do with experiencing Jesus as God first hand? Why did Jesus perform miracles?

Am I saying to base all on experiences, no. The devil gives experiences too. One needs to be careful but experiences are real and can lead to truth.

Not blind faith. Catholicism is a reasonable faith. I was just disputing empirical experience because it is insufficient to arrive at a priori truth, which is what the Mysteries af the faith are.

 

[StTommyMore]

I have come to the conclusion, that entering into this forum to spread the truth has been unfruitful. It seems many minds here are to bigoted, and have warped scripture out of context to fit there own personal beliefs.

Even so i wish you all the best.

We merely concede the Church has authority, and you do not.

 

[Dokimas]

Incidentally, if you deny Christ’s divinity, then I suppose this brings the dialogue to a different plane.

Scripture alone, then, brings many many odd interpretations. Some can read the Scriptures and conclude things which were never taught by the apostles.

In this paradigm, one cannot use the Scriptures to object to anyone else’s dogma, for if you are free to interpret something that’s novel and not supported by 2000 years of Christian tradtion, then why can’t the other person? Someone may decide to read the Scriptures and claim that there are MANY gods, and that god resides in trees. And if he uses Scripture to support his view, you cannot object.

Actually Scripture alone bring us to the conclusion that Jesus is God. However, without the Holy Spirit, people are blind. Even the obvious is not so obvious.

There are two thing that happens: Peter said some use the Scriptures to their own destruction. (2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.)

Then Jesus said: Joh 5:39,40 “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”

There are many who read the Scriptures, which tell of Jesus, and come to Him receiving eternal life. They are those who’s eyes have been opened by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dokimas]

We merely concede the Church has authority, and you do not.

The CC has authority over all who place themselves under her authority.

 

[Dokimas]

Not blind faith. Catholicism is a reasonable faith. I was just disputing empirical experience because it is insufficient to arrive at a priori truth, which is what the Mysteries af the faith are.

You’ve got me confused now. We seemed to have strayed from my comment and the reason for my comment. Context is most always, if not always, vital to discussion.

 

[adrift]

I have come to the conclusion, that entering into this forum to spread the truth has been unfruitful. It seems many minds here are to bigoted, and have warped scripture out of context to fit there own personal beliefs.

Even so i wish you all the best.

You conclude this after 7 post?

You present your opinion and you expect us to just fall down in agreement with your bigoted idea?:bowdown2:

Beware of staying here it might just be dangerous to your preconceived ideas.

 

[ClamDigger]

But not the same?

No. Because Joseph did not risk his life in bearing the Son of God outside of marriage. Joseph did not carry the Son of God within his body. Joseph did not stand at the foot of the cross while Jesus was dying. Joseph was not asked to sacrifice as much as Mary was. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that NO ONE was asked to sacrifice as much as Mary was, short of Jesus Christ Himself!

So how can she be the mother of God and you not deify her?

We do not make Mary the mother of God. GOD does! So, if someone is deifying Mary by “making” her the Mother of God, it is God Himself, not us.

Agreed totally - like I said in previous posts I have spent the past three years studying Mary, Elizabeth, Hannah, Ruth & Sarah for Bible Classes and can confidently say with give her great honour and she is most blessed But she is not God’s mother.

You give her great honor? Not even one day ago you were calling her a sinner, but now you give her great honor? Okay.

Now this statement I 100% agree with because she is the mother of the only begotten SON, not only begotten God…God cannot be begotten.

Okay. Then how is the WORD GOD in John 1.1? Why did Thomas call Jesus “My Lord and My God” in John 20.28? Why did Elizabeth, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, call Mary the Mother of the Lord in Luke 1.43? How do you explain away these passages?

**Jesus NEVER disrespected her if he rebuked her at all it ways always in love and in righteousness - just like he regularly rebuked Peter, James, Andrew and John and all the disciples. **

He did not rebuke her! He simply told her that his hour had not yet come. The part that you miss, the most important part of the story in regards to Mary, is that he did what she asked because his hour HAD come and only Mary realized it before anyone else!

You will need to explain to me how you can call her the mother of God and not deify her? This certainly sounds like a paradox…or is it a mystery?

Yes, Mary is both a paradox and a mystery! She is a virgin, yet she gives birth! She is a human being, yet she gave birth to God in the flesh! She is the only person who we can rightly say has both the purity of a virgin and the compassion and love of a mother. In her are reconciled opposites. If Mary can be a virgin and a mother, why can she not be a human and the mother of God-made-man? She truly is a sign of contradiction (Luke 2.34).

And God is the one who made her his mother. John the Baptist is the cousin of God. That doesn’t mean he is deified. David is the ancestor of God, that doesn’t mean we deify him. God has become man for us, BORN OF A WOMAN! That woman is the Mother of God! If you have a problem with God choosing Mary to be his mother, take it up with him, not us! We are simply giving honor where honor is due.

 

[ClamDigger]

I have come to the conclusion, that entering into this forum to spread the truth has been unfruitful. It seems many minds here are to bigoted, and have warped scripture out of context to fit there own personal beliefs.

Even so i wish you all the best.

Oh yeah! *We *are the ones that have twisted scripture! We are the ones that have denied John 1.1! We are the ones who have denied Thomas’ statement of Jesus’ divinity in John 20.28! We are the ones who have gone against Luke 1.43 in denying Mary the title of “Mother of God”! We are the ones who have turned against the prophecy in Luke 1.48 and proclaimed Mary, not blessed, but a “sinner”! Oh yeah! We sure are the ones who have twisted scripture in this debate!

 

[lil_flower_luv]

It seems many minds here are to bigoted, and have warped scripture out of context to fit there own personal beliefs.

Let’s work on building bridges, not burning them, please.

 

[benidict]

I have come to the conclusion, that entering into this forum to spread the truth has been unfruitful. It seems many minds here are to bigoted, and have warped scripture out of context to fit there own personal beliefs.

Even so i wish you all the best.

You did not come here to discuss. You came here to prosalytize, which is against forum rules. The only bigot I see here, is yourself. Good bye.

 

[benidict]

Oh yeah! *We *are the ones that have twisted scripture! We are the ones that have denied John 1.1! We are the ones who have denied Thomas’ statement of Jesus’ divinity in John 20.28! We are the ones who have gone against Luke 1.43 in denying Mary the title of “Mother of God”! We are the ones who have turned against the prophecy in Luke 1.48 and proclaimed Mary, not blessed, but a “sinner”! Oh yeah! We sure are the ones who have twisted scripture in this debate!

 

[skmorrison6]

Hi Adrift,

You have asked the following scriptures to be expounded. If you dont mind, I will deal with John 1:1 first as I understand your approach to this scripture has long been a anchor for the teaching of Jesus being God.

Okay. Then how is the WORD GOD in John 1.1? Why did Thomas call Jesus “My Lord and My God” in John 20.28? Why did Elizabeth, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, call Mary the Mother of the Lord in Luke 1.43? How do you explain away these passages?

The usual Christadelphian approach to John 1 is to assume that (1) **“beginning” **refers to Gen 1, or earlier, and that (2) “Word” therefore cannot refer literally to Christ, at least at that **“beginning”.

Here the Catholic would disagree and state that Jesus was there in the beginning.

However, **Much of what follows in the next 17 verses of John 1 is a slightly different approach, which (1) has no problem with the “Word” being a title of Christ, but (2) interprets **“beginning” **in an entirely different way.

BEGINNING: “Archee”; signifying **“first in order”, **from root “arch, archon” = a ruler. Cp v 15. “The beginning”: a characteristic phrase of John, referring to the beginning of the **NEW CREATION in Christ: **consider carefully Joh 15:27; 16:4; 8:25; 6:64; 1Jo 1:1; 2:7,13,14,24; 2Jo 1:6. [You will notice in some of these passages that the KJV translation shows certain words italicized, and that omitting these words actually enhances the sense of the passages.]

The “beginning” of the Gospel of John is obviously patterned after the “beginning” of Genesis – Meaning one is the beginning of a natural creation and the other a beginning of a spiritual creation. Hence much similarity of language, and connection of ideas. But it is the beginning of a new, or spiritual “creation” in Christ. As there was a Sun, created or ordained in the heavens by God, in the Genesis-beginning when He decreed, “Let there be light”, so likewise… “In the (new, spiritual) beginning” God testified of Christ: “Let there be light” (cp Gen 1:3 with 2Co 4:6; Mat 4:17; Mar 1:1; Luk 1:1,2; Act 10:37), and this time a **new spiritual Light came into the world. And so God made and ordained His Son Jesus Christ the “beginning” **and the first cause of His new spiritual creation (Rev 3:14).

Remember Jesus Christ is Gods creation, who was natural in body but choose to be spiritual, although being tempted in all points as we are, but without sin. Jesus has a beginning, unlike His Father. But like us because Jesus is spoken of being the first fruits of a new creation. New of course means he hasnt existed before new.

It is instructive and significant that each gospel begins with a “beginning”: cp Mat 1:1 (genesis); Mar 1:1 (archee); Luk 1:3 (anothen). And that the four gospel accounts are placed at the head of the New Testament. Here, in the coming of His Son, God has begun the work of His new, spiritual, “creation” – the corner piece, the foundation stone of which is His Son.

As a separate point, it may be noted how often the Greek “ktisis” (creation) – when used in the NT – signifies, not the creation of Genesis, **but the new, spiritual creation, in Christ, **of regenerated and forgiven men and women who bear his name.

THE WORD: Jesus was a man (Act 2:22; 1Ti 2:5; Rom 8:3; Heb 2:14) who spoke God’s words (Joh 8:28; 7:16). Thus, one of his names is “the word of God” (1Jo 1:1; Rev 19:13; 1:2 – only 3 other instances of John’s use of the phrase “word of God”, all referring to Christ personally). In Greek philosophy, “logos” = an impersonal, abstract wisdom; but in Hebrew thought, “logos” = God Himself. Yahweh is the source of all wisdom! Here “logos” occurs with the definite article (“ho”) which serves to strengthen its meaning. Hence, **‘The Word’ can also be seen to be the “Divine Expression”. ****Christ was exactly this. **It was in Christ that God fully revealed Himself to mankind. It was through Christ’s life and mission that God expressed and illustrated His new covenant, showing us the better way – which is the power of salvation for those who believe.

WITH: “Pros” = facing toward or moving toward.

THE WORD WAS GOD: As John used the definite article (“ho”) to strengthen the meaning of “logos”, so here there is no definite article: ie, “THE word” was not THE God personally, but rather “of God”, or “godly”, or A (manifestation of) God. (In v 14: John writes that **“we beheld his glory”, **as of one who came from God, and was therefore “divine”.) This phrase is translated, “The word was DIVINE” (Moffatt).

John is affirming Christ’s divinity, not his deity. Christ was the Son of God, the ‘Divine Expression’ from heaven which dwelt among us, “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:3).

This forms a much wider study on John 1 should you be interested in better understanding the beginning of that spiritual creation you only need ask.

In the Masters Service…SM

 

[ClamDigger]

Hi Adrift,
You have asked the following scriptures to be expounded. If you dont mind, I will deal with John 1:1 first as I understand your approach to this scripture has long been a anchor for the teaching of Jesus being God.
**Okay. Then how is the WORD GOD in John 1.1? Why did Thomas call Jesus “My Lord and My God” in John 20.28? Why did Elizabeth, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, call Mary the Mother of the Lord in Luke 1.43? How do you explain away these passages? **
The usual Christadelphian approach to John 1 is to assume that (1) **“beginning” **refers to Gen 1, or earlier, and that (2) “Word” therefore cannot refer literally to Christ, at least at that **“beginning”. **

How do you come to this assumption??? It says that he was with God before ALL things were made and all things were made through him (John 1:3). That means that the Word was not made, otherwise he could not have existed before ALL things were made and ALL things could not have been made through him. How could God make something through something that had not yet been made? And, how do you infer that the Word is not literally Christ when it says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us as Christ in John 1:14?
skmorrison6;7621927:

Here the Catholic would disagree and state that Jesus was there in the beginning.

Yes, because that is the only logical conclusion.

However,

Much of what follows in the next 17 verses of John 1 is a slightly different approach, which (1) has no problem with the “Word” being a title of Christ, but (2) interprets **“beginning” **in an entirely different way.
BEGINNING: “Archee”; signifying **“first in order”, **from root “arch, archon” = a ruler. Cp v 15. “The beginning”: a characteristic phrase of John, referring to the beginning of the **NEW CREATION in Christ: **consider carefully Joh 15:27; 16:4; 8:25; 6:64; 1Jo 1:1; 2:7,13,14,24; 2Jo 1:6. [You will notice in some of these passages that the KJV translation shows certain words italicized, and that omitting these words actually enhances the sense of the passages.]

I do not read the KJV. It is not a Catholic Bible. However, I do not understand why you would actually want someone to remove words from the Gospels in order to “enhance” the meaning of it. That would be like telling someone to leave out eggs in an omlette recipe because it “enhances” the flavor.

The “beginning” of the Gospel of John is obviously patterned after the “beginning” of Genesis – Meaning one is the beginning of a natural creation and the other a beginning of a spiritual creation. Hence much similarity of language, and connection of ideas. But it is the beginning of a new, or spiritual “creation” in Christ. As there was a Sun, created or ordained in the heavens by God, in the Genesis-beginning when He decreed, “Let there be light”, so likewise… “In the (new, spiritual) beginning” God testified of Christ: “Let there be light” (cp Gen 1:3 with 2Co 4:6; Mat 4:17; Mar 1:1; Luk 1:1,2; Act 10:37), and this time a **new spiritual Light came into the world. And so God made and ordained His Son Jesus Christ the “beginning” **and the first cause of His new spiritual creation (Rev 3:14).

It says that the Word (who is established to be Christ) was before ALL things were made. That means that the Word could not have been made, otherwise he would not have existed before ALL things and ALL things would not have been made through him!

Remember Jesus Christ is Gods creation, who was natural in body but choose to be spiritual, although being tempted in all points as we are, but without sin. Jesus has a beginning, unlike His Father. But like us because Jesus is spoken of being the first fruits of a new creation. New of course means he hasnt existed before new.

He is not a creation of God. He IS God. His *human body *was the creation of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, but he has always existed. He is the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last (Revelation 22.13)! Jesus has no beginning otherwise he would not be able to justly say that he is the first, as there would have been One before him!