Why was Mary necessary?

[Alithis]

I suggested you review two ancient, condemned heresies. I think if you had, you'd see that a separation of His natures is.... well.... heretical.


What IS written includes two key things: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may be called "GOD" (the identical two things this title affirms). THAT is what IS written: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may be called "GOD." To deny the title we're discussing mandates a denial of one or both of the two things it affirms, both of which ARE written in Scripture: Scripture write that Mary bore Jesus, Scripture writes that Jesus may be called God. Luke 2:1-7, John 20:28 Etc., etc.



- Josiah

nope .. what is written is what is written . your taking two things and then adding another that is NOT written . your shuffling cards then adding to the pack ..no matter which way your shuffle it . its not honest to add your card in and then tell me i must adhere to it .
I'l stick to the original pack

 

[Alithis]

i will also stick to defending the gospel - i feel no need to defend any denomination .
speak of where ANY denomination does not fully agree nor walk in obedience to the scriptures and i wil only agree with you .

if i were to elevate any particular denomination and defend its errors ,that would only be yet another form of idolatry .

 

[Alithis]

Alithis I'd be really interested in seeing your Scriptural and only Scriptural evidence to support that Christ was not both God and man whilst on Earth.

I know you're big on gifts and I can't think of your reasoning as anything other than a means to your own end that Christ was given gifts and not the giver of gifts. There has to be an ulterior motive because it doesn't stack up against the Word.

Pelikan -i don't have any
i fully acknowledge EVERYTHING the scripture says about him .. i also fully acknowledge that he was already with God before the foundation of the earth ..therefore his divinity is not mothered by mary while his flesh ..is . hence she is the mother of the flesh "MAN" not the mother of God . the apostles also were witness to this MAN .. this fully flesh man . there is no ulterior motive to me pointing this out .


some have now , i note,watered down their reference and thier personal interpretation of the term "mother of God" -they have begun to lower the title in attempt to justify it . which is interesting because the words mean what they mean . so to use them is in such opposition to who God is that we cannot use them without a measure of knowledge that doing so is simply wrong .
the result - some have begun to argue that the term "mother of God " doesn't actualy mean mother of GOD "the trinity " ..
i note that the rcc supporters do not yet acknowledge this watering down . however if the term needs watering down ..it only shows it is wrong in the first place . or why was this newly introduced watered down version not offered in the first place .-im just glad some have begun to see this flas title needed amending .. but they are yet to see a little leaven evens the whole lump and the title needs to be fully rejected .. no created being can "mother the creator " and it is both idolatry and blasphemy to use the term .

so i maintain what i have always maintained .. -mary is not the mother of GOD -neither God nor his inspired holy scripture ever gives her that title .and there is a reason for that . it is not a title the most High would EVER give ,as to do so would be to lie about his own eternal nature .

more importantly ..when we repent of teh use of this false title what is lost from christendom ? absolutely nothing . nither the person mary nor the title given her by carnal men have any import on our salvation .
while in contrast -giving her the title is used to reinforce the other devilish doctrines surrounding "rome's" mary (who is not the mary of the bible ) it is used to reinforce the other blasphemous titles ALSO NOT given in the scripture by God - like of queen of heaven ,perpetual virgin, co mediator -all doctrines of devils .all supported by the title "mother of God " -one lie perpetuating another .

 

[Josiah]

If Jesus may be called God (and Scripture does that)..... if Mary bore Him (and Scripture says she did) then Mary is the Mother of God. To state otherwise is to deny one or both of things Scripture states - and thus to deny Scripture.


Now, you can CHANGE THE SUBJECT..... you can SUBSTITUTE strawmen of your own invention (such as "Mary - the Origin of God" or "Mary - the Souce of the Trinity" or other absurdities) but then you are rejecting your own invented strawman rather than the title we're discussing.




.

 

[TurtleHare]

Pelikan -i don't have any
i fully acknowledge EVERYTHING the scripture says about him .. i also fully acknowledge that he was already with God before the foundation of the earth ..therefore his divinity is not mothered by mary while his flesh ..is . hence she is the mother of the flesh "MAN" not the mother of God . the apostles also were witness to this MAN .. this fully flesh man . there is no ulterior motive to me pointing this out .

Where does scripture state that Jesus was not God at any given point?

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
i fully acknowledge EVERYTHING the scripture says about him .. i also fully acknowledge that he was already with God before the foundation of the earth ..therefore his divinity is not mothered by Mary while his flesh ..is . hence she is the mother of the flesh "MAN" not the mother of God . the apostles also were witness to this MAN .. this fully flesh man . there is no ulterior motive to me pointing this out .
...

Do you believe the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ? For the true and right Christian Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. That the Lord Jesus Christ is God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He is God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

 

[visionary]

Mary has no more role since Yeshua grew up. She does not have a role in the redemption of any other person but herself. She too depends upon God for salvation, just like the rest of us. Giving her a nice title doesn't give her any authorities of God.

 

[Josiah]

so i maintain what i have always maintained .. -mary is not the mother of GOD

And THUS you deny and contradict what Scripture states and the title affirms: 1) Mary bore Jesus and 2) Jesus may rightly be called God. You must reject, deny and rebuke Luke 2:1-7 (Mary bore Him) and/or John 20:28, etc. (Jesus is rightly called God).


The rest of your post only reveals that you are ignoring the title, ignoring the discussion, and in stead, in lieu of this, in place of this, inventing STRAWMEN that NO ONE ON THE PLANET has ever said or believed: "Mary - the Creator of the Creator" or "Mary - the Source of the Trinity" or "Mary - the Mother of the Trinity" all absurd, silly things NO ONE believes, NO ONE has stated, titles NEVER used by ANYONE. You simply refuse to discuss the title and instead insist on silly, absurd STRAWMEN of your own invention. Then you rebuke your OWN invented silly strawmen.

more importantly ..when we repent of teh use of this false title what is lost from christendom ?

We have Arianism and Nestorianism. And Christianity is destoryed. A Jesus who is not divine is not the Savior and not the Jesus of the Bible. Now, you rejecting that Mary bore Him probably has little consequence except to make the Bible errant. But to deny His divinity is to make Christianity void.





.

 

[psalms 91]

And THUS you deny and contradict what Scripture states and the title affirms: 1) Mary bore Jesus and 2) Jesus may rightly be called God. You must reject, deny and rebuke Luke 2:1-7 (Mary bore Him) and/or John 20:28, etc. (Jesus is rightly called God).


The rest of your post only reveals that you are ignoring the title, ignoring the discussion, and in stead, in lieu of this, in place of this, inventing STRAWMEN that NO ONE ON THE PLANET has ever said or believed: "Mary - the Creator of the Creator" or "Mary - the Source of the Trinity" or "Mary - the Mother of the Trinity" all absurd, silly things NO ONE believes, NO ONE has stated, titles NEVER used by ANYONE. You simply refuse to discuss the title and instead insist on silly, absurd STRAWMEN of your own invention. Then you rebuke your OWN invented silly strawmen.





We have Arianism and Nestorianism. And Christianity is destoryed. A Jesus who is not divine is not the Savior and not the Jesus of the Bible. Now, you rejecting that Mary bore Him probably has little consequence except to make the Bible errant. But to deny His divinity is to make Christianity void.





.

sigh just cant let it go can you? You know full well our beliefs and twisting words to turn it inot what you want does no good. We will not be converting to Catholicism so lets just acknowledge what we all believe

 

[Alithis]

Where does scripture state that Jesus was not God at any given point?

he is both and yet -
it states in John chapter one that ... "the word became flesh " and it is this flesh ..flesh and blood and bone .. this "man " .. this manifestation of God in flesh .. which mary bore forth . she is the mother of the "man Jesus " not the GOD .
he ..JEsus -the word of God already existed ..it is his flesh form she bore into the world .. not his divine nature ..his divine nature is eternal ..already existed always has existed ,hes no beginning and no end . he came forth from God and "became flesh " by the power of the holy ghost in the womb of a virgin and then that flesh man was born into the world .

she is not never was and never will be the mother of God . that is why the lord NEVER calls her that .because he does not call her somthing which she is not .to do so he would deny his own eternal nature .

lets be honest . no one can point to the scripture and say .."here-look it says god said she is the mother of God " god has no mother he has no beginning he has no end .
the words "mother of God " mean exactly what they say and what they say is blasphemy .
they are used to sure up other false and devilish doctrines like ,mary being a co mediator and mary being a perpetual virgin and mary being without sin .. all absolute lies. all elevating the created beyond its God given station which is idolatry ,all sourced from outside the word of God and NONE originating from God .
and since it does not originate from God its only source of origin is the spirit of antichrist which is already (even in the time of the book of acts ) at work in the children of disobedience .

though many grow angry ..at what im not sure -after all everything im saying is in defense of our one LORD and ONLY saviour and ONLY mediator between man and GOD and only high priest and bishop JESUS . he who was with God before the creation of the world and by whom all things were created .He who came from the father and obediently performed the will of the father and returned unto the father having accomplished all he was sent forth to do . To HIM be all Glory .. to give mary such title is to rob the lamb of God of his rightful glory .

the glory the father speaks of when he says - I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
and you wil all note that the veneration of rome's mary is throughout the world accompanied by rebellious images made by mens hands.. Just as this title given her by carnal wicked men who have no love of the truth in them .

 

[TurtleHare]

he is both and yet -
it states in John chapter one that ... "the word became flesh " and it is this flesh ..flesh and blood and bone .. this "man " .. this manifestation of God in flesh .. which mary bore forth . she is the mother of the "man Jesus " not the GOD .
he ..JEsus -the word of God already existed ..it is his flesh form she bore into the world .. not his divine nature ..

Absolutely ridiculous.

Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

 

[Lamb]

Mary has no more role since Yeshua grew up. She does not have a role in the redemption of any other person but herself. She too depends upon God for salvation, just like the rest of us. Giving her a nice title doesn't give her any authorities of God.

I asked before something similar in post 68 but I will ask again...which member ever stated that she has authority or role of redemption because I have yet to see a member post here with those claims. I'm sure if anyone here believed those claims that they would have been brought to light already here in this thread.

 

[Lamb]

sigh just cant let it go can you? You know full well our beliefs and twisting words to turn it inot what you want does no good. We will not be converting to Catholicism so lets just acknowledge what we all believe

Josiah isn't Catholic so why would you say that?

 

[Lamb]

I think that you are assuming that members here who say Mother of God are saying origin of God and that is not at all what the term Mother of God means. It just means very simply, very plainly and no baggage tacked on that has been thrown out here and there... that Jesus is God and Mary gave birth to him so she is His Mother. Simple. Nothing added that you're claiming.

he is both and yet -
it states in John chapter one that ... "the word became flesh " and it is this flesh ..flesh and blood and bone .. this "man " .. this manifestation of God in flesh .. which mary bore forth . she is the mother of the "man Jesus " not the GOD .
he ..JEsus -the word of God already existed ..it is his flesh form she bore into the world .. not his divine nature ..his divine nature is eternal ..already existed always has existed ,hes no beginning and no end . he came forth from God and "became flesh " by the power of the holy ghost in the womb of a virgin and then that flesh man was born into the world .

she is not never was and never will be the mother of God . that is why the lord NEVER calls her that .because he does not call her somthing which she is not .to do so he would deny his own eternal nature .

lets be honest . no one can point to the scripture and say .."here-look it says god said she is the mother of God " god has no mother he has no beginning he has no end .
the words "mother of God " mean exactly what they say and what they say is blasphemy .
they are used to sure up other false and devilish doctrines like ,mary being a co mediator and mary being a perpetual virgin and mary being without sin .. all absolute lies. all elevating the created beyond its God given station which is idolatry ,all sourced from outside the word of God and NONE originating from God .
and since it does not originate from God its only source of origin is the spirit of antichrist which is already (even in the time of the book of acts ) at work in the children of disobedience .

though many grow angry ..at what im not sure -after all everything im saying is in defense of our one LORD and ONLY saviour and ONLY mediator between man and GOD and only high priest and bishop JESUS . he who was with God before the creation of the world and by whom all things were created .He who came from the father and obediently performed the will of the father and returned unto the father having accomplished all he was sent forth to do . To HIM be all Glory .. to give mary such title is to rob the lamb of God of his rightful glory .

the glory the father speaks of when he says - I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
and you wil all note that the veneration of rome's mary is throughout the world accompanied by rebellious images made by mens hands.. Just as this title given her by carnal wicked men who have no love of the truth in them .

 

[Josiah]

I think that you are assuming that members here who say Mother of God are saying origin of God and that is not at all what the term Mother of God means. It just means very simply, very plainly and no baggage tacked on that has been thrown out here and there... that Jesus is God and Mary gave birth to him so she is His Mother. Simple. Nothing added that you're claiming.

RIght on target. I think SOME who protest this title simply haven't read it. They ignore it. Then invent a DIFFERENT title - one NO ONE ON THE PLANET has ever used, ever believed, ever proclaimed, ever supported. They invent a strawman. A silly, absurd and obviously wrong strawman - in order to NOT talk about the title we're discussing. Sure, it's easy to rebuke a silly, stupid, absurd STRAWMAN that one creates, invents - but none have ever, ever believed or used or professed.

No one has EVER used, believed or professed: "Mary - Creator of the Creator." "Mary - Source of the Trinity" or any of the other silly, absurd, non-existent rubbish that they then condemned. They are STRAWMEN the protestors invent out of their own hearts and minds.

 

[psalms 91]

Absolutely ridiculous.

Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

No not rediculous at all truth is more like it

 

[psalms 91]

Josiah isn't Catholic so why would you say that?

I guess because it sounds like sonmething out of the Catholic church

 

[Josiah]

I guess because it sounds like sonmething out of the Catholic church

Actually, Bill, I've been posting (WAY, WAY too much, lol) on the 'net since I was 10 years old. I've discussed this topic OFTEN - both when I was a Catholic and now as a Protestant. THIS is the first thread where I've seen the proclaimations of this title challenged and declared as wrong. I'm kind of shocked to see Arianism so clearly proclaimed (and even defended). Now, I've met folks who have argued that the title is confusing to some (not sure I disagree there) but this is the first time (out of DOZENS) where some have said that it's WRONG: Mary did not bore Jesus and/or Jesus may not rightly be called God.

SOME have protested the PROCLAIMATION of the title because they insist Jesus is not God (or at least wasn't while in His State of Humilitation). Yes (please dobn't take offense; it's just fact): that's heresy, condemned at the Council of Nicea and the Council of Chaladom, condemned by EVERY denomination on the planet known to me except for the LDS and Oneness Pentecostalism. And while I've heard some deny the virgil birth of Jesus, I've never encountered anyone who denied that Mary bore Him. To say the proclaimations are WRONG is to insists the two things this title proclaims are wrong (well, at least one of them), they thus need to document that 2000 years of universal Chrsitianity is wrong, the Bible is wrong (Luke 2:1-7 and/or John 20:28 for example) because Jesus may NOT be rightly called God and/or Mary did NOT bore Him.

But some don't seem to be actually saying THIS title is wrong (some I'm not TOO sure even know what title we're discussing). RATHER they are protesting OTHER titles that THEY have invented as substitute strawmen. For example, "Mary - the Creator of the Creator" or "Mary - the Source of the Trinity.' SOME seem to be protesting THOSE "titles" in lieu of, in place of, in stead of the one we're actually talking about. But what's frustrating there is NO ONE is remotely teaching that, NO ONE as EVER used those titles, NO ONE on the face of the planet believes those silly and obviously wrong things. But they seem to go on and on and on rebuking THOSE non-existent, phantom, strawmen. They aren't saying ANYTHING AT ALL about the title at issue but about those strawmen they've created out of their OWN minds and hearts (especially absurd ones).


Thank you, Bill.


- Josiah

 

[visionary]

Absolutely ridiculous.

Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Mary provided the physical form in which God dwelt as His only Begotten Son.

 

[Alithis]

I think that you are assuming that members here who say Mother of God are saying origin of God and that is not at all what the term Mother of God means. It just means very simply, very plainly and no baggage tacked on that has been thrown out here and there... that Jesus is God and Mary gave birth to him so she is His Mother. Simple. Nothing added that you're claiming.

so now your saying the term does not mean what the term means .. so if it does not mean what it means -dont use it
because we all know what the term means and that it is wrong -which is why GOD never gives her that title .
if a term is truth ,there is never a need to redefine it .

youve also just sated thay she is :his" mother .. that would be jesus . the man .

not Jesus who is one with the father but came forth from the father ,his flesh ,not his divine eternal nature . how can the temporal created flesh bring forth the eternal divine nature ? it cant .
unless that is - your now also saying mary was divine and born without sin .. and that would only reinforce my other points .that one error perpetuates more error .. it never suddenly becomes the truth just because the many say it .

why oh why does the scripture NEVER say she is the "mother of God " .. ? becaseu she is not

why does the scripture NEVER say she was of divine nature ? because she is not

why does the scripture NEVER say she is a perpetual virgin ? because she is NOT

why does the scripture NEVER say she is the queen of heaven ? because she is not .

SO.. why does rome say all these things about her ? becaseu the mary of rome -- is not the mary of the bible .