The Only Begotten Son of God is the God of Mary

[guanophore]

Of course a mother bears her child, but Mary is not the mother of the pre-incarnate divine Son of God, she is the mother of the** incarnate ** Son of God. “The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14)…from the Virgin Mary’s womb and by the power of the Holy Spirit. “The gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh.” (Rom.1:3). The motherhood of Mary is all about the Virgin Mary giving natural birth to the human nature of the Son of God, and not giving birth to his pre-incarnate divinity.

What you have summarized here is the Nestorian heresy that the term Theotokos was chosen to refute. What the early Church decided is that Jesus is One Person with two natures, a divine, and a human. But a mother is not the mother of a “nature” - she is the mother of a “person”. Therefore, she became the mother of the only begotten Son of God in both His natures, divine, and human. This does not mean that she was the origin of his divine nature, but that it was inseparably joined (in the hypostatic union) with his human nature, which did come from her.

When a child develops in the mother’s womb, the soul is as much a part of his human nature as his body. Both the soul and the body develop together.

Our Heavenly Father is the Father who begat His Son as His only-begotten divine Son. The Virgin Mary did not give birth to the only-begotten divine Son. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”** In the beginning, the Word was not with Mary**. Does this explain the difficulty that I have with the term, ‘mother of God’?

Absolutely it does. You have expressed the heresy of Nestorianism very well. The Apostles taught that she did, indeed, give birth to the only begotten Son of God, One person with two natures, divine, and human.

Please understand that there are others who like myself have this difficulty with the phrase. This phrase can not be found in scriptures, this phrase can not be found in the writings of the pre-Nicene church fathers. This phrase was not used, nor necessary for three hundred years of Catholic tradition in explaining the incarnation of the Son of God.

These things are true. Just as the term Trinity is not found in the Scriptures. Just as the list of books that belong in the NT is not in the scriptures. The same group of bishops that chose the term Theotokos is the one that chose the canon of the NT in 382 AD. The fact that it took so long does not take away from the fact that it is Truth.

 

[guanophore]

The Virgin Mary did not give birth to the second person of the Trinity, God the Father did.
God the Father sent His Son into the womb of the Virgin Mary in order to take on human flesh. “God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom.8:3)

The Virgin Mary participated and gave birth to the humanity of the Son of God. The divinity of the Son of God pre-existed the Virgin Mary, so the Virgin Mary could not be the mother of his divinity, nor give birth to his divinity. God sent His Son into the womb of Mary in the likeness of sinful flesh.

For a person who claims to be Catholic, you sure are adamant about rejecting Catholic Theology. Are you sure your public profile is correct? Nestorian seems to be more appropriate.

Indeed Mary gave birth to the second person of the Trinity. This is why it is called a mystery.

And no, I do not believe that Mary was without sin, otherwise, how could the Son of God be sent in the likeness of sinful flesh? How could the Son of God be tempted in every way as ourselves, yet without sin?

Humanity was not created in sin to be sinful. God created humans to be the image and likeness of Himself. Adam and Eve were not created with sin. Yet, they were subject to, and fell into sin. Sin is not part of God’s creation for ourselves. On the contrary, it is a distortion of his perfect plan for humanity that He has demonstrated in Mary.

And no, I do not believe that Mary remained a physical virgin while giving birth to Jesus Christ. She was truly a mother with birth pangs, umbilical cord and everything else that occurs in giving birth. Otherwise, how could Mary offter up the necessary sacrifices for the purification of blood as prescribed in Lev.12 and Luke 2:22? Otherwise, how could Mary present Jesus Christ in the temple as the firstborn son, ‘who opens the womb’? as prescribed in the law of Moses and in Luke 2:23-24?

Well, this is a centuries old pious theological speculation. Since birth pangs were a consequence of original sin, and Mary did not have it, the Fathers speculated that she did not experience them. What makes you think that there would be no blood in childbirth, even if Mary retained her virginity? You sound like a person who does not believe that God can do miracles.

Just as the gates of Sheol were broken, and the stone of Jesus’ grave was removed as being the firstborn from the dead. This Jesus is the one whom ‘God raised up, loosing him from the birthpangs of death.’ (Acts 2:24) Just as Jesus ascended to heaven and was presented to God forty days after being the firstborn from the dead. (Acts 1:3,9; Daniel 7:13) Thus fulfilling the law of Moses in a deeper significance than when Jesus was presented as the firstborn who opened Mary’s womb and was presented in the temple forty days later as prescribed in the law of Moses.

He was flesh of her flesh, and her firstborn. Despite the fact that Joseph was not his bio father, he did all the things a bio dad would have done.

Scripture speaks the truth and always will. Every book of the New Testament was quoted by the pre-Nicene church fathers. Scripture takes precedence over human authority.

This also sounds like an anti-catholic statement. The authority Jesus appointed over the Church is not of human origin, but of Divine. As the Father sent Him, so He sent them. We understand the Scriptures according to what the Apostles believed and taught. There is no dichotomy between the Scripture and the Sacred Tradition, because they both come from the same Source. One need not take precedence over the other. They complement one another. There are no teachings of the Catholic Church that contradict the scriptures.

 

[zarthan]

What you have summarized here is the Nestorian heresy that the term Theotokos was chosen to refute. What the early Church decided is that Jesus is One Person with two natures, a divine, and a human. But a mother is not the mother of a “nature” - she is the mother of a “person”. Therefore, she became the mother of the only begotten Son of God in both His natures, divine, and human. This does not mean that she was the origin of his divine nature, but that it was inseparably joined (in the hypostatic union) with his human nature, which did come from her.

When a child develops in the mother’s womb, the soul is as much a part of his human nature as his body. Both the soul and the body develop together.

Absolutely it does. You have expressed the heresy of Nestorianism very well. The Apostles taught that she did, indeed, give birth to the only begotten Son of God, One person with two natures, divine, and human.

These things are true. Just as the term Trinity is not found in the Scriptures. Just as the list of books that belong in the NT is not in the scriptures. The same group of bishops that chose the term Theotokos is the one that chose the canon of the NT in 382 AD. The fact that it took so long does not take away from the fact that it is Truth.

I do not know what Nestorius believed or purported to believe. God knows his heart, and He also knows mine. If people like yourself want to call others heretics that is their privilege, but also their warning. I will not answer each of your assertions point by point, because each of us will be debating each other according to our own biased perspective.

As I have stated on this thread, I do not have an issue with the term, “God bearer” or ‘mother of God incarnate’. "Mother of God’ is a confusing term to those who are not of the Catholic faith. You may know what it means, and many Catholics may know what it means, but the rest of world does not. Why not include the rest of the world into the faith by choosing a simpler term? This whole issue is an issue of semantics, not of the theology of the Son of God of which you think.

As I stated before, the legacy of the pre-Nicene church fathers is the legacy that enabled the N.T. canon to be chosen. The pre-Nicene church fathers quoted from all the books that later became the N.T. canon in their writings and in their teachings.

 

[guanophore]

Most everything you have said is a distortion of what I have written

She is drawing logical conclusions from your assertions to show you why they are erroneous. You are right, you are suffering from a distortion, but it isn’t hers.

Mary gave birth to the child Jesus whose humanity is of Mary and whose divinity is of God the Father. As a mother, she is the mother of his humanity and not of his divinity…IS THAT CLEAR!

It is clearly a heresy.

A mother is a mother of a person, not a nature. Jesus had two natures. She was His mother.

The divinity of the Son of God was joined to the humanity of Jesus Christ by the sovereign intervention of God Almighty when He was conceived in the womb of Mary. This does not make Mary the mother of his pre-existent divinity, it makes her the God bearer.

This is true, and is consistent with the Catholic Teaching. The place where you seem to depart is in thinking that she was not the mother of His whole Person.

Every mother gives birth to their child who is human and eternal. As mothers, they are mothers of their temporal flesh and not of their eternal souls…IS THAT CLEAR!

It is clearly an error.

Mothers bear whole persons, not parts of persons. The Church defines a person as one with body, soul, and spirit. The soul is eternal, because God made it that way. The sould begins to develop at conception, and is as much a product of the DNA of the parents as every other part of the child. This is why it is immoral to create test tube babies.

The eternal soul of every child is created by God Almighty and joined to the temporal flesh of every child conceived by their parents. The temporal body and eternal soul of every child who is born is joined together by the sovereign work of God Almighty. This does not make the mother the originator of the child’s soul, it makes her the bearer of that child’s soul.

It appears you have confused spirit with soul.

Yes, I am stating what the scriptures state. “God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” The flesh nature of our Lord Jesus Christ was like ours…with the propensity to be selfish, with the propensity to be tempted by selfish desires. Yes, our Lord Jesus Christ ‘was tempted by sin in every way as ourselves, yet without ever sinning’
IS THAT CLEAR!

It is clearly yet another heresy. Jesus did not suffer concupiscence, and did not have our fallen nature, or propensity to sin.

Our Lord Jesus Christ received this fallen flesh nature from his mother Mary. Our Lord Jesus Christ never sinned in thought, word or deed. The same can not be stated of Mary, eventhough she was a holy woman on earth.

Would you like to furnish some evidence of her sins, or propensity toward sin? You have rejected the Teachings of the Catholic Church, and are therefore disingenuous to claim that you are Catholic.

And yes, I am refuting a Roman Catholic teaching that can not be substantiated and is frankly ludicrous. If the Virgin Mary remained a physical virgin during the process of giving birth to Jesus Christ, then it would disqualify her from being the natural mother of Jesus in the complete sense of the meaning.

I can understand how it would seem this way to you. However, what you are refuting is not a “Roman” Teaching, but an Apostolic one. It was defined in the East (Greek) Church, and is shared by all those Eastern Christians that are not in communion with Rome.

The scriptures that the Pre-Nicene fathers taught were the four gospels, the book of Acts, the epistles of the apostles Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude and the book of Revelation.
The canon was later based on the written authority from which the Pre-Nicene fathers taught and wrote. We have the pre-Nicene fathers to thank for leaving us this legacy. Therefore, I acknowlege the authority of the pre-Nicene church fathers who taught from all of the writings which we call the N.T. today.

Wow. The more I read of yours, the more anti-catholic they sound.

I deny the Marian dogma, because out of this ‘mother of God’ dogma proceeded the ever virgin dogma of her remaining a physical virgin while giving birth to Jesus Christ. In like manner, the dogma that Mary was without a fallen nature (original sin) like all humans who born into this world, arose out of this dogma that Mary is the mother of God. This is what happens when scripture is disregarded in favor of human reasoning.

Or one’s human reasoning is regarded higher than what God has revealed to the Church. You are free to post here without being Catholic, but please don’t disrespect us by claiming in your affiliation that you are.

Finally, Jesus Christ himself says that his mother and his brothers and his sisters are they (stretching his hands toward his disciples) who do the will of his Father in heaven. So natural relationships to Jesus Christ are not what matters, as much as the spiritual relationship that His disciples have in being obedient to the will of His Father in heaven.
(Matt.12:47-50)

If a natural family did not matter, why didn’t he just appear on earth fully grown?

What He means is that we can all attain the intimacy that He had with his earthly famly if we obey Him the way they did . Denying what He has revealed to the Church aint’ the way!

 

[guanophore]

I do not know what Nestorius believed or purported to believe. God knows his heart, and He also knows mine.

Now might be a very good time for you to find this out. I am sure that you are very sincere about your Christian faith, and that you are attaching yourself to long defeated heresies because you don’t know any better. Have you considered that God brought you here to CAF so that your faith could be enriched and informed? Why take on all the struggles against sin that have already been defeated by the HS working through the Church? Do you not think there are many battles that you can fight?

If people like yourself want to call others heretics that is their privilege, but also their warning. I will not answer each of your assertions point by point, because each of us will be debating each other according to our own biased perspective.

I did not call you a heretic, zarthan. I cannot tell that you have ever been made aware of the Truth, and therefore, could not have willfully and knowingly departed from it. You have vigorously claimed an heretical position, but that does not make you an heretic. It makes you poorly catechized and confused.

. "Mother of God’ is a confusing term to those who are not of the Catholic faith. You may know what it means, and many Catholics may know what it means, but the rest of world does not. Why not include the rest of the world into the faith by choosing a simpler term? This whole issue is an issue of semantics, not of the theology of the Son of God of which you think.

We are not at liberty to change the Truth that has been revealed to the Church about God to make it palatable to the modern generation. I do realize that it creates some problems, but it is incumbent upon all of us to study to show ourselves approved. If it is uncomfortable, I think that people like yourself, once they study and understand the heresies it was adopted to refute, will be able to understand and accept it.

This is like asking us to use “some other word besides Trinity because it is confusing to people”. We can’t do that.

You can reject the faith of the Apostles, but it cannot be revised to suit you.

 

[zarthan]

She is drawing logical conclusions from your assertions to show you why they are erroneous. You are right, you are suffering from a distortion, but it isn’t hers.

It is clearly a heresy.

A mother is a mother of a person, not a nature. Jesus had two natures. She was His mother.

This is true, and is consistent with the Catholic Teaching. The place where you seem to depart is in thinking that she was not the mother of His whole Person.

It is clearly an error.

Mothers bear whole persons, not parts of persons. The Church defines a person as one with body, soul, and spirit. The soul is eternal, because God made it that way. The sould begins to develop at conception, and is as much a product of the DNA of the parents as every other part of the child. This is why it is immoral to create test tube babies.

It appears you have confused spirit with soul.

It is clearly yet another heresy. Jesus did not suffer concupiscence, and did not have our fallen nature, or propensity to sin.

Would you like to furnish some evidence of her sins, or propensity toward sin? You have rejected the Teachings of the Catholic Church, and are therefore disingenuous to claim that you are Catholic.

I can understand how it would seem this way to you. However, what you are refuting is not a “Roman” Teaching, but an Apostolic one. It was defined in the East (Greek) Church, and is shared by all those Eastern Christians that are not in communion with Rome.

Wow. The more I read of yours, the more anti-catholic they sound.

Or one’s human reasoning is regarded higher than what God has revealed to the Church. You are free to post here without being Catholic, but please don’t disrespect us by claiming in your affiliation that you are.

If a natural family did not matter, why didn’t he just appear on earth fully grown?

What He means is that we can all attain the intimacy that He had with his earthly famly if we obey Him the way they did . Denying what He has revealed to the Church aint’ the way!

I am not anti-Catholic, I disagree with many of the Marian dogma. I am pro-scripture and pro-early church fathers. I am against a certain type of religious pride that labels everyone a heretic that does not believe exactly as they do with regard to teachings that are not **established as true **in the scriptures and in the writings of the early church fathers. .

Say what you will, but Jesus commands us to ‘bless those who curse you, and pray for those who speak evil of you’. Believe it or not, I am not your enemy, nor the enemy of any Catholic who is true to their faith. Catholic I was baptized, Catholic I was confirmed, and only God knows whether or not I am of His universal church. If you think that I am an enemy of the Catholic Church because of my differences with many of the Marian dogmas, then contact my Bishop of the St. Paul, MN. diocese and introduce proceedings to have me excommunicated.

God has called me to be like a Berean, and maybe you and other traditionalists are as Rechabites. I only know that “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

In the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ I abide and may His peace prevail.

 

[guanophore]

I am not anti-Catholic, I disagree with many of the Marian dogma.

One equates to the other. You are opposed/contrary to (anti) Catholic Teachings.

 I am pro-scripture and pro-early church fathers.

Doubtless you are in favor of your own private interpretations of them. What you don’t seem to realize is that the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics, and all the early fathers were catholic, and there is NOTHING in scripture that contradicts the Catholic doctrine (includign Marian dogmas) .

I am against a certain type of religious pride that labels everyone a heretic that does not believe exactly as they do

I don’t think anyone here has done that, zarthan. Perhaps you are taking offense over something that did not happen? What do you think might cause that?

But, even if it had happened, it is the duty of the Church to teach the difference between orthodox belief (the faith of the Apostles) and departures from that faith (heresy). It is not a matter of pride, but a matter of responsibility away from which we cannot shrink.

You also seem to be laboring under a misconception here. Catholics are not free to pick and choose their own personal beliefs either. We are all bound to embrace the One Faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles. So you see, it is not a matter of “someone that does not believe as they do”. It is a matter of anyone, you, me, the next person, departing from the One Faith.

with regard to teachings that are not **established as true **in the scriptures and in the writings of the early church fathers. .

It is clear that you reject the authority that Jesus gave to the Church. This being the case, you have no foundation for accepting your Bible, either.

Say what you will, but Jesus commands us to ‘bless those who curse you, and pray for those who speak evil of you’. Believe it or not, I am not your enemy, nor the enemy of any Catholic who is true to their faith. Catholic I was baptized, Catholic I was confirmed, and only God knows whether or not I am of His universal church.

If you were validly baptized, then you have sustained an indelible and eternal mark from that event. If you wish to now knowingly and deliberately reject the faith of the Catholic Church, then you might consider doing so with integrity, and stop claiming to be Catholic when you don’t embrace the One Faith of the Catholic Church.

If you think that I am an enemy of the Catholic Church because of my differences with many of the Marian dogmas, then contact my Bishop of the St. Paul, MN. diocese and introduce proceedings to have me excommunicated.

This seems like a ridiculous and defensive response. You have already excommunicated yourself by rejecting the doctrine of the faith.

God has called me to be like a Berean, and maybe you and other traditionalists are as Rechabites. I only know that “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

What made the Bereans more noble is that they accepted with eagerness the Apostolic Teaching. This is what you are refusing to do, so if indeed you are called to be like a Berean, you are missing the mark.

In the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ I abide and may His peace prevail.

Peace is hard to find for those who reject the Bride of Christ, through whom He infallibly preserves His TEachings for our benefit.

 

[zarthan]

quanaphore:

I may not know the catechism, but God has given me the gift of knowing the scriptures.
You have not stated the truth regarding the soul of the human being.

**366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 **

I have not interpreted the scriptures, nor the early church fathers regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Why? Such a concept does not exist in scripture, nor in the
writings of the Pre-Nicene church fathers.

I have not interpreted the scriptures, nor the early church fathers regarding the physical virginity of Mary remaining, while giving birth to Jesus Christ. Why? Such a concept does not exist in scripture, nor in the writings of the Pre-Nicene church fathers.

I have not misinterpreted the subject of the nobility of the Bereans, because they searched the scriptures to see if what the Apostle Paul taught was true. (Acts 17:11)

I have searched the scriptures and have found your assertions to be false, and your accusations an offense against God.

 

[guanophore]

quanaphore:

I may not know the catechism, but God has given me the gift of knowing the scriptures.
You have not stated the truth regarding the soul of the human being.

**366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 **

Both things are true, zanthan. The soul is as much influenced by the genetic makup of the parents as the body. This does not mean that God does not create it. The act of procreation is, in itself, an act of God.

Now would be a good time to read your catechism.

I have not interpreted the scriptures, nor the early church fathers regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Why? **Such a concept does not exist in scripture, nor in the

writings of the Pre-Nicene church fathers.**

Well, we read them differently, don’t we?

Much of what we read is influenced by our own perceptions.

I have not interpreted the scriptures, nor the early church fathers regarding the physical virginity of Mary remaining, while giving birth to Jesus Christ. Why? Such a concept does not exist in scripture, nor in the writings of the Pre-Nicene church fathers.

It seemst that you are unable to accept the evidence that plainly exists, so any interpretation you might make would be distorted. It may not be a very good use of your time.

I have not misinterpreted the subject of the nobility of the Bereans, because they searched the scriptures to see if what the Apostle Paul taught was true. (Acts 17:11)

They did search, as should we all. But it was not the searching that made them more noble. It was the attitude with which they received apostolic instruction (that which you refuse to do). In this attitude, they are contrasted with people such as yourself, who resist apostolic instruction with hostility.

I have searched the scriptures and have found your assertions to be false, and your accusations an offense against God.

Well, this is not surprising, since we often find that which we project out from ourselves upon our environment. It is dangerous to equate oneself with God, though, and finding that God is offended just because you are might be quite a stretch.

 

[elvisman]

I have no problem with Mary being called the “God bearer”, rather than God’s mother. Indeed, she carried the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ in her womb to full term, and gave birth to him. This is an especially unique and most honorable election for the Virgin Mary in bringing God’s anointed into the world.

As others have already stated - your objection to Mary being called the Mother of God was dealt with at the 1st Council of Ephesus in 432. This Council was convened to combat the Nestorian Heresy, which you seem to be infected with. This heresy tried to split the 2 natures of Christ - divine and human.

The Council declared that Christ united to himself these TWO natures and stated that Jesus is fully divine and fully human. This is called the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Christ.

They went on to declare Mary, Theotokos (God-Bearer) because she gave birth to Jesus in his united natures. She DIDN’T give birth to a nature, but to Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who is God.**

I have written a very detailed treatise on this very subject because of the very same objection from my Protestant siblings that you have against Mary and the Hypostatic Union of Christ.
It was actually a response to a pamphlet my sister wrote in union with her Pastor husband for their congregation. It was approved by my very orthodox Pastor, who approves all of my writings since they appear in our weekly bulletin.
If you want to read it, you can find it here:
strosesv.com/Faith/pdf/Mary,_the_Mother_of_God.pdf

 

[pablope]

**As others have already **stated - your objection to Mary being called the Mother of God was dealt with at the 1st Council of Ephesus in 432. This Council was convened to combat the Nestorian Heresy, which you seem to be infected with. This heresy tried to split the 2 natures of Christ - divine and human.

The Council declared that Christ united to himself these TWO natures and stated that Jesus is fully divine and fully human. This is called the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Christ.

They went on to declare Mary, Theotokos (God-Bearer) because she gave birth to Jesus in his united natures. She* DIDN’T* give birth to a nature, but to Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who is God.

I have written a very detailed treatise on this very subject because of the very same objection from my Protestant siblings that you have against Mary and the Hypostatic Union of Christ.
It was actually a response to a pamphlet my sister wrote in union with her Pastor husband for their congregation. It was approved by my very orthodox Pastor, who approves all of my writings since they appear in our weekly bulletin.
If you want to read it, you can find it here:
strosesv.com/Faith/pdf/Mary,_the_Mother_of_God.pdf

Hi, Elvisman…since you seem knowledgeable on the subject, can you provide the actual reason or confimation why the name “Mother of God” was promulgated. I forgot where I read or heard it, but the reason the name “Mother of God” was promulagated was because the early christians were separating or not understanding the divinity of Jesus when Mary was called Mother of Christ, hence it was changed to Mother of God at the 1st council of Ephesus. Please correct me if I got this wrong.

 

[elvisman]

Hi, Elvisman…since you seem knowledgeable on the subject, can you provide the actual reason or confimation why the name “Mother of God” was promulgated. I forgot where I read or heard it, but the reason the name “Mother of God” was promulagated was because the early christians were separating or not understanding the divinity of Jesus when Mary was called Mother of Christ, hence it was changed to Mother of God at the 1st council of Ephesus. Please correct me if I got this wrong.

Yes. Mary was declared Theotokos, which means God-bearer because she bore God in her womb.
If she had only been considered Christ-bearer in the human nature only, she would have been called, Christotokos, which means, Christ-bearer.

It is not only correct to call her the God-bearer, but the Mother of God as well because she gave birth to the God incarnate. To deny this fact is to deny Christ himself and is heresy, plain and simple.

 

[zarthan]

If I was to accept much of the Marian dogma, I would be denying Jesus Christ who saves me from my sins. My salvation from sin is in Jesus Christ “who was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom.8:3-4)

The dogma of Mary being without the fallen nature of original sin, would negate the fact that Jesus Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh.
I would be a fool to deny the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ who overcame the sinful flesh nature that we ourselves are born into. “We have a high priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities, for He was tempted in every way as us, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

Never, never, never can I go back from the salvation which I have in Jesus Christ!!! Accepting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception would decimate the power of Jesus Christ who saves me from my sins.

Furthermore, the phrase, ‘mother of God’ knowingly or knowingly, disassociates Jesus Christ from the fallen humanity that He was born into, the fallen humanity that He overcame perfectly without sinning.

 

[guanophore]

If I was to accept much of the Marian dogma, I would be denying Jesus Christ who saves me from my sins.

A person who makes such a statement clearly does not understand the dogmas. Mary does nothing but lead us to Christ. Her heart’s desire for all of us is to “do whatever He tells you”.

My salvation from sin is in Jesus Christ "who was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom.8:3-4)

And you think Mary takes away from this how?

The dogma of Mary being without the fallen nature of original sin, would negate the fact that Jesus Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh.

zarthan, you are apparently not even thinking about what you are reading and quoting. You have quoted this verse several times, but you seem to miss the fact that he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. His flesh was not sinful, nor was the flesh from whence his came. He was able to pay the price of our sins because He is the unblemished Lamb.

I would be a fool to deny the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ who overcame the sinful flesh nature that we ourselves are born into. “We have a high priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities, for He was tempted in every way as us, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

His temptations were external, not internal. Jesus did not suffer from conpuiscence. You have departed from the Apostolic faith, zarthan.

Never, never, never can I go back from the salvation which I have in Jesus Christ!!! Accepting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception would decimate the power of Jesus Christ who saves me from my sins.

Ok. If your perception of your salvation only works for you when it is based upon falsehoods, then I guess you need to keep them intact.

Furthermore, the phrase, ‘mother of God’ knowingly or knowingly, disassociates Jesus Christ from the fallen humanity that He was born into, the fallen humanity that He overcame perfectly without sinning.

Only in your mind, dear one. On the contrary, the great and eternal God became incarnate in the flesh. This is one of the great mysteries of the faith.

'You have equated human flesh with sin, and this is where you are getting off track. God did not create human flesh to be sinful. Humanity fell into sin. When He redeemed humanity from sin, He perfected human flesh again by the power of His blood. That is why He could take His human body to heaven - nothing unclean can enter heaven.

 

[Cruxis117]

If I was to accept much of the Marian dogma, I would be denying Jesus Christ who saves me from my sins. My salvation from sin is in Jesus Christ “who was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom.8:3-4)

The dogma of Mary being without the fallen nature of original sin, would negate the fact that Jesus Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh.
I would be a fool to deny the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ who overcame the sinful flesh nature that we ourselves are born into. “We have a high priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities, for He was tempted in every way as us, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

Never, never, never can I go back from the salvation which I have in Jesus Christ!!! Accepting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception would decimate the power of Jesus Christ who saves me from my sins.

Furthermore, the phrase, ‘mother of God’ knowingly or knowingly, disassociates Jesus Christ from the fallen humanity that He was born into, the fallen humanity that He overcame perfectly without sinning.

Well, I believe that this is a rather interesting post for three reasons.

1. That in your Religion side-bar on the top of where your name is, it says that you call yourself Catholic, yet you purposefully reject the Immaculate Conception and the idea of the Theotokos.
2. In what way does accepting the Immaculate Conception decimate the power Jesus Christ’s redemption?
3. In your last part of your post, are you claiming that Jesus stained with original sin?

 

[zarthan]

If Mary did not have a flesh nature that had a propensity for selfishness and selfish desires, then neither did Jesus.

If Jesus did not have a flesh nature that had a propensity for selfishness and selfish desires, then ‘He did not condemn sin in the flesh’, ‘having been sent in the likeness of sinful flesh’. and then, "He was not tempted in every way as us"

In other words, we are denying that Jesus overcame the propensity to sin that is part of the sinful flesh nature that he received from his mother, the Virgin Mary. We are denying the scriptures, and apostolic teaching.

Jesus was not stained with original sin, neither are we. We are stained with a sinful flesh nature with the propensity to sin, as was Mary, and as was Jesus. The difference being, only Jesus Christ overcame the propensity to sin. Thus, he saved me (is saving me) from my sins.

As the apostle Peter says, 'abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul". We are able to abstain from fleshly lusts which war against our soul through Jesus Christ who overcame the propensity of fleshly lusts without ever sinning in thought, word, or deed. Thanks be to God!

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Zarthan, why have you not replied to the other thread’s Scripture passages and Church Father’s writings that back up Mary being the Mother of God? We’ll talk Immaculate Conception some other time.

 

[zarthan]

Zarthan, why have you not replied to the other thread’s Scripture passages and Church Father’s writings that back up Mary being the Mother of God? We’ll talk Immaculate Conception some other time.

Dear lil flower: I just posted. You would be surprised how much extrapolation and spuriousness arose out of the post-nicene-politically charged era. This is why I always remain in the Pre-Nicene era of the early church fathers.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Dear lil flower: I just posted.

Thank you.

You would be surprised how much extrapolation and spuriousness arose out of the post-nicene-politically charged era. This is why I always remain in the Pre-Nicene era of the early church fathers.

We cited both pre-Nicene and post-Nicene writings.

Besides, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Irenaeus of Lyons were very clear.

 

[guanophore]

If Mary did not have a flesh nature that had a propensity for selfishness and selfish desires, then neither did Jesus.

You have just hit the nail on the head about how the Church arrived at the immaculate conception. The Church knew that Jesus did not have a propensity toward sin, and since he took His flesh from His mother, neither did she.

If Jesus did not have a flesh nature that had a propensity for selfishness and selfish desires, then 'He did not condemn sin in the flesh', **'having been sent in the likeness of sinful flesh'**.  and then, "**He was not tempted in every way as us"**

You have drawn false conclusions.

Adam and Eve were created without a propensity for sin and selfish desires, yet they fell to temptation.

His body was in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh - not sinful flesh.

He was tempted in every way, but was able to resist temptation without sin, just a He has enabled us to do.

 In other words, we are denying that Jesus overcame the propensity to sin that is part of the sinful flesh nature that he received from his mother, the Virgin Mary. We are denying the scriptures, and apostolic teaching.

Who is “we”? You are the only one drawing false conclusions here.

Catholics know and accept that Jesus triumphed over all sin, original and personal. He did this becuase He was the perfect unblemished Lamb of God.

 Jesus was not stained with original sin, neither are we.

Another anti-scriptural and false conclusion.

We are stained with a sinful flesh nature with the propensity to sin, as was Mary, and as was Jesus. The difference being, only Jesus Christ overcame the propensity to sin. Thus, he saved me (is saving me)  from my sins.

You seem to be very confused. The stain of original sin = the sinful flesh nature and the propensity to sin.

 As the apostle Peter says, 'abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul". We are able to abstain from fleshly lusts which war against our soul through Jesus Christ who overcame the propensity of fleshly lusts without ever sinning in thought, word, or deed. Thanks be to God!

I do strongly urge that you continue to abstain from fleshly lusts. The fact that Jesus never suffered these will not prevent Him from helping you overcome them.