G
guanophore
Guest
If that is the case, you will have to jettison your Bible.
- Status
Z
zarthan
Guest
One could pratically recreate the Bible from the multitude of quotations by the Pre-Nicene early church fathers. There are a few exceptions, such as in Luke 3:22 âThou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee.(or, Fathered thee)â This is only found in the New Jerusalem translation.
However, in many of the pre-Nicene church fathers, Luke 3:22/New Jerusalem translation (Ps.2:7) is quoted as the words of the voice that came from heaven when Jesus was baptized. This scripture was also once used in the baptismal formula. It is considered the original Epiphany of Jesus Christ.
However, in many of the pre-Nicene church fathers, Luke 3:22/New Jerusalem translation (Ps.2:7) is quoted as the words of the voice that came from heaven when Jesus was baptized. This scripture was also once used in the baptismal formula. It is considered the original Epiphany of Jesus Christ.
G
guanophore
Guest
If you think that highly of them, perhaps you will accept their testimony that Mary is Theotokos.
Z
zarthan
Guest
After I read the writings of the three citations of the Pre-Nicene early church fathers I may arrive at that acceptance. In the mean time here is one citation regarding Jesus taking on not the semblance of our sinful flesh, but the reality of it.
"We maintain, moreover, that what has been abolished in Christ is not carnem peccati, âsinful flesh,â but peccatum carnis, âsin in the flesh,â----not the material thing, but its condition;234 not the substance, but its flaw;235 and (this we aver) on the authority of the apostle, who says, "He abolished sin in the flesh."236 [3] Now in another sentence he says that Christ was "in the likeness of sinful flesh,â237 not, however, as if He had taken on Him âthe likeness of the flesh,â in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality: but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned,238 because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned,----resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; [4] whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful. In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in than was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christâs abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature! Then, you say, if He took our flesh, Christâs was a sinful one. [5] Do not, however, fetter with mystery a sense which is quite intelligible. For in putting on our flesh, He made it His own; in making it His own, He made it sinless. A word of caution, however, must be addressed to all who refuse to believe that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it came not of the seed of a human father,239 let them remember that Adam himself received this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father. As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself240 the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human fatherâs agency.241â
Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, Chap.XVI.
"We maintain, moreover, that what has been abolished in Christ is not carnem peccati, âsinful flesh,â but peccatum carnis, âsin in the flesh,â----not the material thing, but its condition;234 not the substance, but its flaw;235 and (this we aver) on the authority of the apostle, who says, "He abolished sin in the flesh."236 [3] Now in another sentence he says that Christ was "in the likeness of sinful flesh,â237 not, however, as if He had taken on Him âthe likeness of the flesh,â in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality: but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned,238 because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned,----resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; [4] whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful. In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in than was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christâs abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature! Then, you say, if He took our flesh, Christâs was a sinful one. [5] Do not, however, fetter with mystery a sense which is quite intelligible. For in putting on our flesh, He made it His own; in making it His own, He made it sinless. A word of caution, however, must be addressed to all who refuse to believe that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it came not of the seed of a human father,239 let them remember that Adam himself received this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father. As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself240 the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human fatherâs agency.241â
Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, Chap.XVI.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Correct so far.
Do you even know a certain heresy called Nestorianism? You cannot separate His Divine and His Humanity. What you are proposing with this statement is a separation of these two natures.
I have a very clear grasp of what you are saying but you obviously do not even understand what you yourself are sayinig.
Since being a mother means carrying a child in oneâs womb and giving birth to that child, if you say that Mary was only mother to Jesusâs humanity, then that means she carried only Jesusâs humanity in her womb, and that further means she did not carry Jesusâs divinity in her womb. Are you with me so far?
So when did Jesus become Divine if Mary did not carry His Divinity in her womb?
Ha! Did you hear what you just said? "He was conceived in the womb of Mary!" That is precisely what the term mother means!
You are grasping at straws.
You are clear but VERY, VERY WRONG.
When your mother carried you in her womb, she carried the whole you - body and soul. She did not carry just your body. She did not just give birth to your body. She gave birth to you. So she was not mother of your body, she was mother of the entire you.
Can you please pick up a dictionary because it seems you do not even know what the term mother means.
I will probably be told off for this but are you dense? How many times do we have to say that being mother does not mean being the originator.
Canât you even grasp a simple definition that even primary school children can grasp?
How many times do we have to tell you that being mother does not mean we create our children? Even the physical body is the creation of God. God creates both the physical body and the soul. The mother is the conduit only for this creative act.
Have you got a dictionary somewhere where it says that the mother is the originator of life?
You are arguing against arguments we never made. You are making things up and then proceeding to argue against your own imagined theologies.
And how exactly does that get into the equation?
Please start thinking a bit more clearly and logically as this is getting tiresome.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Zarthan, if you are so fixated on the pre-Nicene fathers, then can you please do an indepth research and tell me how they understood the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Church and the Eucharist?
Because of you value them highly, then surely would go by their conclusions on other matters of faith.
T
therealprophecy
Guest
hello peopleâŚi am new hereâŚi just came across this book onlineâŚi beg of u to read it thoroughly by His grace and spirit and give me feedbackâŚbecause i am confusedâŚreally need yâallâŚthanxâŚhope to hear 4rm some1 soon
chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp
chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp
B
benedictus2
Guest
Just looking at the website I can tell you.
Hogwash. Rubbish. Refuse.
If you want to understand Catholicism go to the âFaithâ tab of this website.
Believing anything written in that book is to believe the devil.
You wonder why these people need to manufacturing lies.
Remember what Jesus said about the devil? He is the father of lies. The people who wrote those are simply following their father.
E
elvisman
Guest
Most mainline Protestants see Jack Chickâs writings as a parody of Christianity. Itâs nothing more than a really bad joke.
Only anti-Catholics and fringe groups agree with many of his positions. In fact, there are many anti-Catholic websites that even reject his writings.
For some really good exposĂŠs of this master of deceit, check out the following links:
http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p2.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403fea2.asp
E
elvisman
Guest
Zarthan -
By reading your posts on this and other threads concerning this issue, it is glaringly apparent that you have indeed embraced the 1600-year-old heresy of Nestorianism. You have attempted - post after post - to split the two inseparable natures of Christ just as Nestorious did, for which he was taken to task by Cyril of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus in 432. This is heresy, plain and simple.
I suggest that if you do not wish to be associated with heresy, you really need to study the origins of Nestorianism and the declarations at the Council of Ephesus. Most reputable Protestant theologians donât even question the Hypostatic Union as much as you do - and they donât** even claim to be Catholic - like you do . . .
**
Z
zarthan
Guest
The teaching on the Eucharist from the Pre-Nicene church fathers is in line with current Roman Catholic teaching. The primacy of the bishop of Rome is more complicated. There was generally the principle of autonomy of the local bishops with a collegiality of consensus on doctrinal matters. The bishop of Rome was considered to be a major or the major voice in such matters depending on which pre-Nicene church father one reads.
Z
zarthan
Guest
OK so you think I am dense. the mother of God phraseology is confusing to many, so this is why there needs to be clarification for those who do not understand or know Catholic teaching in this matter,.are you so dense so as not to understand my point?
B
benedictus2
Guest
Oh yes I understand your point. That is why I brought to your attention that you are a Nestorian. Everyone has been saying the same thing. If you are capable of reading the Church Fathers then surely you know what Nestorian heresy is.
And those who do not understand what mother means ought to get a dictionary and look up the word.
You are saying that we are claiming other things about motherhood** when we never even did that. **
You manufactured arguments, tied them to motherhood when it has nothing to do with what being a mother is. And these things that you have been saying have all got nothing to do with what the Church has claimed about Mary being mother of God.
In short you created a straw man.
Weâve explained it many times over, in two other threads and yet you still come up with the same post and the same fallacy.
You went on and on and on about something we never even claimed with regards Mary as mother of God. It was so simple and you made it complicated, saying all the time that we are claiming for her something we never ever claimed.
If people canât understand what mother means, especially those who have passed primary school, then that is dense. There is nothing wrong with the term Mother of God. If people are confused about it, it is because they canât follow simple logic. It is not the term that has to be changed. What needs to be done is to get these people better educated.
And another thing, since you claim to be Catholic (although when you started posting I seem to remember that that is not what you indicated as your religion), what makes you think that you can delineate which Council is acceptable? What makes you the authority that decides whether Nicene Councils and Fathers ought not to be believed?
B
benedictus2
Guest
No one disputed the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome even when they argued about it.
The simple fact is, if the Church is correct about itâs ecclessiology and the Eucharist then the Church is correct about this one.
Z
zarthan
Guest
Seriously, I really do not understand this Nestorianism thing. It is Post-Nicene I know.
As far as the definition of motherhood is concerned, the definition becomes more complex when the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ is joined together.
Yes, motherhood involves the entire person, but it also involves the concept of maternity, and for fathers the concept of paternity. Since our physical nature is maternal and paternal, and our spiritual nature is of God our Creator, I would think that you would understand the distinction.
Evidently, our definitions of motherhood and fatherhood are inclusive and exclusive of the role of our Creator when it come to maternity and paternity in the origin of our spiritual nature.
believe it or not, I do not like to argue for the sake of debate, I only would like people such as yourself to see why the phrase, âthe mother of Godâ is confusing to those who are not of the Catholic faith, and to judge such people as less spiritual than oneself is unfair.
I want only the peace of Jesus Christ and greater understanding between the Christian faiths to prevail.
B
benedictus2
Guest
No it doesnât. It becomes complex to your mind because you have the wrong concept that somehow being mother means that the mother is the originator of the chid.
It does not mean that at all.
Take for example an ordinary human being. Your father contributed to your becoming a person. Part of your physical make up comes from your mother, and part from your father and your soul is infuse into this union by God while at the same time every single part of you is still created by God although He uses your motherâs and fatherâs DNA.
But when we speak of your mother, she is mother not just of that part of you that is from her DNA but also to that part of you that you father contributed. She is mother of your person. You are complicating something that is not complicated. Do not read into the term mother something that is not there.
But all that the concept of maternity (as in DNA) means is that you are physically genetically related to your mother. It does not in anyway mean your mother created you or is your originator. It is the same with Christ. God used Maryâs DNA in becoming human hence she is His mother. Due to the absence of an earthly father all His DNA is from Mary.
Rather than saying that the term is wrong, what needs to be done is to explain the term. Although why it needs explaining escapes me since it is really so very simple.
I would not say exclusive of the role of the Creator. God is the Creator pure and simple. Motherhood just means that a particular woman was used as the means by which God chose to create persons but in this instance, a particlar woman was chosen by Him with which to become Incarnate.
I have already explained that the confusion is not due to the term but due to people ascribiing to the term someting that is not there.
As for those who do not believe Mary is Mother of God being judged less spiritual, where did that come from?
Can you cite anyone in this forum who has said that? Or is this another one of your imaginings that you ascribe to us.
Changing terms wonât do it. Explaining terms will.
This is almost similar to the push by the overly politically correct feminist to foist inclusive language on us.
For hundreds of years, the term âManâ has always been understood not just as gender but humanity and all of a sudden in the 20th century the feminists are up in arms protesting.
For hundreds of years God has always been referred to as He or Him and now they want to get rid of that because it is offensive to them that God is referred to as such when it is clear that Christ asked us to call God Father.
Some kind of common sense needs to prevail here.
G
guanophore
Guest
It really is a difficult and mysterious matter, which is why the term Theotokos was adopted.
We understand your point just fine. You have made it quite clear that you have unwittingly embraced an heretical viewpoint by trying to make sense out of an ineffible mystery.
G
guanophore
Guest
Had you considered that God is calling you to expand yourself? The canon of Scripture is post Nicene too, but that does not make it invalid.
This is very true. It is complex, and basically beyond our human comprehension. The Church has defined what she is able, but is is not possible for us to grasp all of this until we are beyond the veil of flesh.
No, not really. How do you distinguish them from one another? Does the surrogate mother of an implanted zygote have maternity?
No, I donât think so . God chose to create through the human person.
I donât think she was judging your spirituality, just your intellect.
Seriously, most people have trouble with it because they have received a deficient Gospel that was truncated 500 years ago during the Reformation. Although the original Reformers accepted the Marian doctrines, within one generation this faith was lost.
As do we, but we are not at liberty to jettison any part of the One Faith that was handed down to us. It is a seamless garment, and must be held intact. Those who begin to pull at threads, with the excuse that certain things are not âessentialâ for our salvation, end up pulling apart the garmet, and the doctrines get lost.
Z
zarthan
Guest
We understand your point just fine. You have made it quite clear that you have unwittingly embraced an heretical viewpoint by trying to make sense out of an ineffible mystery.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I think this may be the root cause of this problem for you. The key words in this dogma are Nestorianism and Hypostatic Union. You have to make a decision on them first before you can adequately address on the dogma of Mother of God because it arise from the understanding of these words and it consequently dealt with them.
- Status