Why was Mary necessary?

[Alithis]

Ain't complicated, is it?

nope its lies and distractions.. Jesus never called her mother of God. and the father publkcly acknowledges the son.
you cant base the title on scripture. and you know it. it is a title given by the carnal mind . it does not originate from God.

do you akso acknowledge her as queen of heaven ?

 

[Alithis]

Mary bore Jesus. Luke 2:1-7, etc.
Jesus is correctly called God. John 20:28, etc.

more lies and distractions. none of these versus call her the mother of god.
and changibg the meanibg as some are now writhing around to do is just silly.

mother of God means - mother of God. no one is the mother of God.

did the father from heaven say ..this is my beloved son..or this is God?
yup..you know its case closed.

why do you so want this normal every day woman to be given such a title ?why do you desire to worship her so?
why do you seldom speak of the lord jesus yet defend this woman as if she can do anything for you. she cannot answer prayer csnnot ibterceed, cannot forgive your sin against God and cannot save you.yet you lavish titles beyond her station which scripture NEVER gives her and defend those man made titles above the scripture.
actions speak louder then words. and yours are speaking very loudly

 

[MoreCoffee]

Where in scripture does it call Mary mother of God? Where did Jesus ever call her that? I find it amazing that Catholics cant see that raising Mary above is taking away from Christ and is sacreligious

Holy scripture calls Jesus God (John 1:1, 14, 18*) and holy scriptures calls Mary the mother of Jesus (John 2:3) therefore holy scripture calls Mary the mother of God. Holy scripture also calls Mary the mother of my LORD (Luke 1:43).

* No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18 NASB)

 

[Josiah]

Mary bore Jesus. Luke 2:1-7, etc.
Jesus is correctly called God. John 20:28, etc.



.

more lies and distractions.

No, Scripture is not lying.


If you reject the two things Scripture proclaims and the title affirms, then you are rejecting these two things that Scripture proclaims and the title affirms. For the title to be wrong, one or both of the two things it affirms MUST ERGO be wrong: either Mary did not birth Jesus (and Scripture thus is wrong) and/or Jesus may not be referred to as God (and Scripture thus is wrong).



- Josiah



.




.

 

[TurtleHare]

Well isn't this the longest running Yes it is No it isn't thread?

Next we will be seeing a thread saying that wasn't God up there on the cross either.

I think that a huge study on who Jesus is is needed because if you deny Jesus and him being God then the rest of your theology should be questioned.

 

[psalms 91]

As far as I can tell noone denied Jesus as God

 

[Josiah]

As far as I can tell noone denied Jesus as God

That did happen in this thread. To the shock of several of us.

 

[psalms 91]

That did happen in this thread. To the shock of several of us.

I think what happened is what people tried to make it say niot actually being said or believed

 

[George]

I don't get how people can overthink this lol.

 

[George]

more lies and distractions. none of these versus call her the mother of god.
and changibg the meanibg as some are now writhing around to do is just silly.

mother of God means - mother of God. no one is the mother of God.

did the father from heaven say ..this is my beloved son..or this is God?
yup..you know its case closed.

why do you so want this normal every day woman to be given such a title ?why do you desire to worship her so?
why do you seldom speak of the lord jesus yet defend this woman as if she can do anything for you. she cannot answer prayer csnnot ibterceed, cannot forgive your sin against God and cannot save you.yet you lavish titles beyond her station which scripture NEVER gives her and defend those man made titles above the scripture.
actions speak louder then words. and yours are speaking very loudly

So Scripture is a lie? Got it.


And the meaning isn't changed, when clearly it's outlined what it means.

 

[Lamb]

As far as I can tell noone denied Jesus as God

You did here by saying this:

Apparently some dont understqand that Jresus gave up being God and came to earth as man and had to receive the Holy Spirit and ask God just as man has to. There is no contradiction., just people not understanding how Jesus operated on earth

 

[psalms 91]

You did here by saying this:

And you think while He was God that He didnt give it up to be as a man is? If that is true and He used His status as God to do all the things He did then He didnt really win anything back from satan because He did it as God and not man. Jesus on the earth was the last Adam and won back what we lost with the first Adam.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And you think while He was God that He didn't give it up to be as a man is? If that is true and He used His status as God to do all the things He did then He didn't really win anything back from Satan because He did it as God and not man. Jesus on the earth was the last Adam and won back what we lost with the first Adam.

Jesus is God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us... No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:1-18 NASB) God became flesh. The man, Jesus Christ, is both a man and almighty God. He did not give up being God to become a man.

 

[Lamb]

And you think while He was God that He didnt give it up to be as a man is? If that is true and He used His status as God to do all the things He did then He didnt really win anything back from satan because He did it as God and not man. Jesus on the earth was the last Adam and won back what we lost with the first Adam.

100% God AND 100% man. That's the beauty of it. He didn't have to give up anything. He's God.

 

[Josiah]

And you think while He was God that He didnt give it up to be as a man is? If that is true and He used His status as God to do all the things He did then He didnt really win anything back from satan because He did it as God and not man. Jesus on the earth was the last Adam and won back what we lost with the first Adam.

Bill, please review two ancient and ecumenically condemned heresies: Arianism and Nestorianism.


Bill, it is embraced by every mainstream denomination on the planet (and has been since at least 325 AD) that Jesus is/was/every will be FULLY, TOTALLY, 100% God and 100% man. Both. Fully. Inseparable, united but not blended. This is a point in which there is full agreement between Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants. It's Council of Nicea, Council of Chalcadon stuff.... VERY basic, very foundational, very ancient, very ecumenical.

No, Jesus NEVER ceased to be God - or man. His two natures are inseparable, joined, connected. But not blended. Each nature is distinctive BUT inseparable. As was explained to me as a little boy, like two sides of a coin.

Yes, at times, He "laid aside" the rights and abilities of His divinity (necessary in order to be our Savior) but He never abandoned His divinity (or humanity).

This is why Scripture may CORRECTLY call Jesus "God." And why it may CORRECTLY call Jesus "Man" . Because BOTH are fully, totally, completely, always true.



Bill...

The ancient title we're discussing (it comes from a very ancient ECUMENICAL Council that is accepted generally by all Protestants!), simply affirms two things: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may rightly, correctly called God. Scripture declares both of these (Luke 2:1-7, John 20:28 for example). Because Mary bore Him and because He may rightly be called "GOD" (as Scripture itself does), then Mary is the mother of God. To deny the ancient title (again, that comes from a Council Protestants generally ACCEPT), is to deny one or both of the two things it affirms and Scripture states. Now, IMO, it is wrong to CHANGE the title to something no one ever uses, one never proclaimed, one different than what we are discussing, say to "Mary - Origin of the Trinity" and then condemn that; no that's IGNORING the title we're discussing, creating a pure strawman NO ONE ON THE PLANET believes or professes (and never has!) - then rebuking what no one believes or says or accepts... all in lieu of discussing the actual title.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

Bill, please review two ancient and ecumenically condemned heresies: Arianism and Nestorianism.


Bill, it is embraced by every mainstream denomination on the planet (and has been since at least 325 AD) that Jesus is/was/every will be FULLY, TOTALLY, 100% God and 100% man. Both. Fully. Inseparable, united but not blended. This is a point in which there is full agreement between Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants. It's Council of Nicea, Council of Chalcadon stuff.... VERY basic, very foundational, very ancient, very ecumenical.

No, Jesus NEVER ceased to be God - or man. His two natures are inseparable, joined, connected. But not blended. Each nature is distinctive BUT inseparable. As was explained to me as a little boy, like two sides of a coin.

Yes, at times, He "laid aside" the rights and abilities of His divinity (necessary in order to be our Savior) but He never abandoned His divinity (or humanity).

This is why Scripture may CORRECTLY call Jesus "God." And why it may CORRECTLY call Jesus "Man" . Because BOTH are fully, totally, completely, always true.



Bill...

The ancient title we're discussing (it comes from a very ancient ECUMENICAL Council that is accepted generally by all Protestants!), simply affirms two things: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may rightly, correctly called God. Scripture declares both of these (Luke 2:1-7, John 20:28 for example). Because Mary bore Him and because He may rightly be called "GOD" (as Scripture itself does), then Mary is the mother of God. To deny the ancient title (again, that comes from a Council Protestants generally ACCEPT), is to deny one or both of the two things it affirms and Scripture states. Now, IMO, it is wrong to CHANGE the title to something no one ever uses, one never proclaimed, one different than what we are discussing, say to "Mary - Origin of the Trinity" and then condemn that; no that's IGNORING the title we're discussing, creating a pure strawman NO ONE ON THE PLANET believes or professes (and never has!) - then rebuking what no one believes or says or accepts... all in lieu of discussing the actual title.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

OK that I can agree with that He was both but laid it aside to be our saviour in every sense of that word

 

[Josiah]

OK that I can agree with that He was both but laid it aside to be our saviour in every sense of that word

Well... only the USE of it. He never laid aside His divinity, His divine nature. So, no He didn't say it aside "in every sense."

Now, if we agree that He was/is/always will be 100% God AND 100% man - both, fully, totally, inseparably - do you agree that Scripture does not err when it calls JESUS specifically "GOD" (as in John 20:28)? And do you agree that Mary bore this Jesus, who may be correctly referred to as specifically "GOD?"




.

 

[psalms 91]

Well... only the USE of it. He never laid aside His divinity, His divine nature. So, no He didn't say it aside "in every sense."

Now, if we agree that He was/is/always will be 100% God AND 100% man - both, fully, totally, inseparably - do you agree that Scripture does not err when it calls JESUS specifically "GOD" (as in John 20:28)? And do you agree that Mary bore this Jesus, who may be correctly referred to as specifically "GOD?"




.

I agree with scripture I dont agree with your interpretation. Yes He was and is God and yes He was also man and in orde rto win victory over sin He was man, had to be or else it didnt win us anything, when He defeated satan He was man, had to be orelse it was God that defeated satan and if thats the case then He won nothing back for man. He laid it all aside as evidenced by the dove descending on Him showing that He also needed the Holy Spirit to operate because He was man. He showed us how man can be used by God or else He showed us nothing. He showed us how to overcome temptation as man or else if He was God then He showed us nothing. Hope this makes sense to you and that you can see it clearly

 

[Alithis]

And you think while He was God that He didnt give it up to be as a man is? If that is true and He used His status as God to do all the things He did then He didnt really win anything back from satan because He did it as God and not man. Jesus on the earth was the last Adam and won back what we lost with the first Adam.

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ...

Dont get distracted . the point here is. Mary is mother to this flesh manifestation.. Not mother of God.
Nothing any one has argued will ever change that. The scriptures are inspired og the holy spirit. The holy Spirit Never gives her that title. Simple as that. The title does not originate from God.

 

[Lamb]

You argue about title but what about phrase?