Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwinG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mrS4ntA:
Then you are guiltyn of denying Jesus’ divinity. The original intention of hailing Mary as the Theotokos, i.e. “the God-bearer” i.e. “Mother of God” was to root out a heresy denying the hypostatic union of Christ.

Granted, Jesus has two natures. But a nature is not a person, and a mother does not give birth to a nature, but a whole person.

Jesus is God; Mary is His Mother; ergo, Mary is the Mother of God. Plain and simple.

Regarding natures, you can say Jesus, Son of God and Son of Mary.

But Mary is the Mother of the Word Incarnate. Period.
Click to expand...
I agree that Mary is the mother of a person however, the moment you say that Mary is the “mother of God,” you have violated that distinction; for then you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not humanity! In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of one of Jesus’ natures. The person of Jesus isn’t merely God any more than the person of Jesus is merely man. To put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is both God and man. She did not give birth to the per-incarnate form of the Logos! Therefore, it is proper to call Mary the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God!

:yup:
 
2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitably for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
Click to expand...
Uh-huh. Now please tell me that St. Paul had available, in written form no less, all the current books of the Old Testament including the Deuterocanonicals, and also the 4 gospels, the letters of Peter, James, John, and Jude, the letters Paul wrote AFTER 2 Timothy, and Revelation, so that I know that “All Scripture” refers to those, and only those, books in the canon of Scripture as of 382 A.D.
 
40.png
yochumjy:
Yes, I know that all scripture is inspired by God and good for you, but that isn’t what we are talking about is it.

You SPECIFICALLY said:

Now, where does the book of Job claim to be inspired? Is it in the text of the book of Job? Where is the text in Acts that says
“This book is inspired”. So, stop being so illusive, and tell me where ANY book of the Bible makes the claim that it is inspired or part of scripture.

John
Click to expand...
Hehe. Welcome to Garbage-Can Logic:

How do you know this is a garbage can? (How do you know this book is inspired?)
Because it has garbage in it. (Because it is in the KJV)
How do you know it is garbage? (How do you know it belongs in the KJV?)
Because its in the garbage can. (Because it is inspired)

Not much point in arguing with someone who argues as if one day God dropped a completed Bible from space directly into the hands of the Deformers.

Scott
 
John 17 3:
I agree that Mary is the mother of a person however, the moment you say that Mary is the “mother of God,” you have violated that distinction; for then you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not humanity! In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of one of Jesus’ natures. The person of Jesus isn’t merely God any more than the person of Jesus is merely man. To put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is both God and man. She did not give birth to the per-incarnate form of the Logos! Therefore, it is proper to call Mary the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God!

:yup:
Click to expand...
We agree with you, she gave birth to Jesus (true God and true man) so she gave birth the existing 2nd person of the Trinity… God. Making her the mother of God. :yup:
 
Church Militant:
That’s just fine, though all this has diddly to do with Mary, but is there any list anywhere defines as showing what is scripture and what is not. The only early church records are all Catholic, so you’re outta luck there. The only guarantee that you have an inspired canon at all is because of the authority of the church that wrote, protected and confirmed it as canon. Otherwise all you have to go on is your personal assertion that the Bible that you have in your hand is inspired. There are a lot of other religions that have writings that they claim are inspired and your assertion does nothing more than put you on the same level that they’re on. Dubious at best and ludicrous at worst. The only authoritative proof of inspiration is the authoritative statement of the church that Jesus Himself founded in 33 AD.

So…now prove to us the inspiration of each and every book in the Bible. Let’s start with Jude, which quotes two non-Canonical books of Jewish traditional writings as inspired text. (The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch) 😃
Click to expand...
And the subject of this thread is???
 
Church Militant:
That’s just fine, though all this has diddly to do with Mary, but is there any list anywhere defines as showing what is scripture and what is not. The only early church records are all Catholic, so you’re outta luck there. The only guarantee that you have an inspired canon at all is because of the authority of the church that wrote, protected and confirmed it as canon. Otherwise all you have to go on is your personal assertion that the Bible that you have in your hand is inspired. There are a lot of other religions that have writings that they claim are inspired and your assertion does nothing more than put you on the same level that they’re on. Dubious at best and ludicrous at worst. The only authoritative proof of inspiration is the authoritative statement of the church that Jesus Himself founded in 33 AD.

So…now prove to us the inspiration of each and every book in the Bible. Let’s start with Jude, which quotes two non-Canonical books of Jewish traditional writings as inspired text. (The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch) 😃
Click to expand...
And the topic of this thread is???
 
John 17 3:
I agree that Mary is the mother of a person however, the moment you say that Mary is the “mother of God,” you have violated that distinction; for then you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not humanity! In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of one of Jesus’ natures. The person of Jesus isn’t merely God any more than the person of Jesus is merely man. To put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is both God and man. She did not give birth to the per-incarnate form of the Logos! Therefore, it is proper to call Mary the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God!
Click to expand...
From a Catholic perspective: Mary was certainly the mother of the child Jesus, Jesus is God. Simple logic: Mary is the mother of God. Of course, from our perspective, which is limited, she is also more than that. She was, of course, overshadowed by God in order to conceive.

So, you are now saying that Jesus is NOT God? Or are you saying that our spiritual entity is absolutely distinct from our flesh and the two have no dependancy on each other?

John
 
John 17 3:
I agree that Mary is the mother of a person however, the moment you say that Mary is the “mother of God,” you have violated that distinction; for then you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not humanity! In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of one of Jesus’ natures. The person of Jesus isn’t merely God any more than the person of Jesus is merely man. To put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is both God and man. She did not give birth to the per-incarnate form of the Logos! Therefore, it is proper to call Mary the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God!

:yup:
Click to expand...
Havin’ a little trouble with the hypostatic union, huh, John?
 
John 17 3 said:
And the topic of this thread is???
Click to expand...

True, maybe you can start a new thread and inform us how all scripture is declared. Or as you assert, how books of the Bible “claim” they are inspired.

John
 
John, with all due respect, it was the Protestants who “took out” books from Scripture, not Catholics who “added them”.

The only reason that there is a discussion of what books “made up” the Bible at all is that the PROTESTANTS took out some which they thought (correctly) validated what the Catholic Church said about things like Purgatory, which had been believed by Christians for over 1500 years, and which they PROTESTED (that’s where we get the term “Protestant”) that they didn’t “believe”.

From 382 A.D. the books of the Bible were known to include the Deuterocanonicals and these books were found in the beautiful manuscript copies of ancient Bibles from the 6th century and onwards (ever seen “The Book of Kells”)?

The anticlericalism of some secular groups and leaders, coupled with the dissent of many theological “thinkers”, combined with the availability of written Bibles, led to what was at first “outbreaks” and later concerted efforts by Protestant factions to effect two things: A breakdown of the “power” they felt the Catholic Church posed as a threat to them personally, and a desire to “justify” their rebellion on doctrinal issues. The Church addressed group after group, king after prince, summoned council after council, in good faith efforts to try to maintain Christian unity.

If you truly believe your “claims”, I am sorry for you. Perhaps you will be lucky enough to have “invincible ignorance” as a legitimate claim. God bless.
 
Luke1:48:
We agree with you, she gave birth to Jesus (true God and true man) so she gave birth the existing 2nd person of the Trinity… God. Making her the mother of God. :yup:
Click to expand...
Wrong again! The moment you call Mary “the mother of God” you are saying that Jesus is only God! Don’t you get it? Jesus is **both **God and man. Also, God is not a person but three persons. In using the term “mother of God” you are saying that Mary is the mother of the three persons of God and are ignoring Jesus’ humanity!
 
40.png
mercygate:
Havin’ a little trouble with the hypostatic union, huh, John?
Click to expand...
Actually, I have no problem with the hypostatic union. My only problem is with the term “Mother of God” as applied to Mary!
 
Hail Mary, mother of Jesus, who is both God and man.

Ok-dokey, that should settle it.
 
John 17 3:
Wrong again! The moment you call Mary “the mother of God” you are saying that Jesus is only God! Don’t you get it? Jesus is **both **God and man. Also, God is not a person but three persons. In using the term “mother of God” you are saying that Mary is the mother of the three persons of God and are ignoring Jesus’ humanity!
Click to expand...
Wrong Again! The moment that you say Mary is not the Mother of God, you say that Jesus was meerly a man, not the incarnation… Arianism.
 
John 17 3:
Actually, I have no problem with the hypostatic union. My only problem is with the term “Mother of God” as applied to Mary!
Click to expand...
Then you’re havin’ trouble with the hypostatic union.
 
Luke1:48:
Wrong Again! The moment that you say Mary is not the Mother of God, you say that Jesus was meerly a man, not the incarnation… Arianism.
Click to expand...
No, Mary was the mother of a person who is both God and man!
Mary is the mother of Jesus!
 
John 17 3:
No, Mary was the mother of a person who is both God and man!
Mary is the mother of Jesus!
Click to expand...
Who is the second person of the Trinity… God!
 
40.png
mercygate:
Then you’re havin’ trouble with the hypostatic union.
Click to expand...
I think you’re having problems with logic! Mary cannot be the mother of God, who is a being that consists of three persons not just one!

:banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top