Why was Mary necessary?

[Lamb]

My questions:

Why do you think that saying Mary if the Mother of God provides her any glory?
Any power?
Any special anything but what it says?

Those are things that no one has stated within this thread, yet, I've seen it bounced around as a reason to deny what is plainly obvious.

 

[MoreCoffee]

this contradiction .. -you just said to him "The father IS god the son IS God etc" ( the term GOD is the collective person of the trinity it is a plural tense it is never singular . .in essence it means "them" .

The word 'God' is singular. There is one God not several. In Greek the word for God is Theos which is singular too. There is no "collective" God. The creed says that Christians worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the substance.

so when we use the term "GOD" we are speaking of all that God is . the collective godhead . if you take away a part of it then you have a part .. not the whole ,not "GOD" . then when he asked you -does the son make up the whole trinity (which means the godhead for the term trinity is also not in the scriptures ) you answered "absolutely not ". and so fully contradicted the statement you made .

all in an attempt to maintain the glorification of the created Mary -which is idolatry .

Mary is "the mother of Jesus" the holy scriptures say this many times and Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God. This statement glorifies Jesus by affirming that he is God. Mary is not glorified by observing that she is the mother of God but she is blessed and the holy scriptures say that all generations will call Mary blessed.

 

[George]

My questions:

Why do you think that saying Mary if the Mother of God provides her any glory?
Any power?
Any special anything but what it says?

Those are things that no one has stated within this thread, yet, I've seen it bounced around as a reason to deny what is plainly obvious.

Lol that's what I want to know, I want to know exactly why people are getting so bent out cause of a title, Lord have mercy lol. Yes veneration of Mary has been taken to the extreme and overboard, but let's also keep in mind that there have been so many other things that have been taken overboard and gone to the extreme. Additionally, while we're on the trail of saying that since Scripture doesn't say it, it's wrong/blasphemous/satanic/wonderful, etc whatever the lovely people in this thread are saying, let's also not be so dismissive to realize there are things in practice by the church that some would even go so far to accept as Scriptural and what have you.

Mary has no power, end of story. If a miracle happens through Mary somehow, the power that is used to perform the miracle is of God, not Mary. No one is saying that Mary has power and is God or anything, the Mother of God is a title. How you perceive that is on you, but I find it funny that people are going on to fly off the handle and say we're twisting Scripture when I've seen people in this thread call Scripture a lie.

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but the fact that some are dismissing that these two heresies being said in this thread have been rejected by both the Ecumenical Councils which have been accepted by all 3 churches is quite appalling.

The title Mother of God comes back to the two natures of Christ and the Incarnation. That's it, it's a title nothing more, it doesn't grant her powers and what not.

/rant

 

[Full O Beans]

Blessed Mary is the mother of God. The meaning of that title has been given and the theology that leads to it has been explained. To call it a blasphemy is an error to suggest it is devilish is a sin.

God hasn't given Mary, who is rarely mentioned in scripture, any title at all. That is mere man's doing, who has a deep desire for religiosity, but must defeat that by seeking God and searching His word and will about it.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Alithis]

My questions:

Why do you think that saying Mary if the Mother of God provides her any glory?
Any power?
Any special anything but what it says?

Those are things that no one has stated within this thread, yet, I've seen it bounced around as a reason to deny what is plainly obvious.

to be honest and sadly harsh sounding - ..what a silly question .

what Glory is it then to give JEsus the title "LORD" ? king of kings ,prince of peace .. titles are there to glorify the one they refer to .

 

[Alithis]

The word 'God' is singular. There is one God not several. In Greek the word for God is Theos which is singular too. There is no "collective" God. The creed says that Christians worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the substance.



Mary is "the mother of Jesus" the holy scriptures say this many times and Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God. This statement glorifies Jesus by affirming that he is God. Mary is not glorified by observing that she is the mother of God but she is blessed and the holy scriptures say that all generations will call Mary blessed.

but scripture doesn't say that . that's why you keep referring to NON scriptural reference .

 

[Alithis]

God hasn't given Mary, who is rarely mentioned in scripture, any title at all. That is mere man's doing, who has a deep desire for religiosity, but must defeat that by seeking God and searching His word and will about it.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

correct .

 

[MoreCoffee]

but scripture doesn't say that . that's why you keep referring to NON scriptural reference .

You express a concern that holy scripture does not contain the words "Mary is the mother of God" yet you cannot deny that holy scripture does say "Mary the mother of Jesus" and that "the Word was God" nor can you deny that the Word is Jesus Christ therefore Mary is the mother of God. But one thing I want to know from you. If you require holy scripture to use the exact words "Mary is the mother of God" before you will acknowledge it as true then why to you say "Baptism is a testimony to my faith in Jesus Christ" and expect me to accept that when holy scripture never says it. Your claims operate on a double standard. You demand one thing concerning blessed Mary yet accept the opposite when it comes to your doctrine of baptism.

 

[Alithis]

You express a concern that holy scripture does not contain the words "Mary is the mother of God" yet you cannot deny that holy scripture does say "Mary the mother of Jesus" and that "the Word was God" nor can you deny that the Word is Jesus Christ therefore Mary is the mother of God. But one thing I want to know from you. If you require holy scripture to use the exact words "Mary is the mother of God" before you will acknowledge it as true then why to you say "Baptism is a testimony to my faith in Jesus Christ" and expect me to accept that when holy scripture never says it. Your claims operate on a double standard. You demand one thing concerning blessed Mary yet accept the opposite when it comes to your doctrine of baptism.

it also says Jesus is the son of god . it also says he gave up his divine rights and BECAME FLESH . she is the mother of his flesh .. for JESUS himself existed with God before mary was ever created .. he does not begin at mary ..only the flesh he formed in her womb did and she is the mother of the flesh Man . not GOD .. why is it ouh so important to you that she be called something God NEVER calls her .

 

[Alithis]

..

 

[Lamb]

it also says he gave up his divine rights and BECAME FLESH .

Scripture? You've already been shown that he didn't give up his divinity through scripture that others provided.

 

[MoreCoffee]

it also says Jesus is the son of god . it also says he gave up his divine rights

Show me where holy scripture says "Jesus gave up his divine rights". It isn't in any bible. Not even Jehovah's witnesses have that in their bibles.

and BECAME FLESH . she is the mother of his flesh .. for JESUS himself existed with God before mary was ever created .. he does not begin at mary ..only the flesh he formed in her womb did and she is the mother of the flesh Man . not GOD .. why is it ouh so important to you that she be called something God NEVER calls her .

Mary is the mother of Jesus not the mother of "his flesh" as if she gave birth to a body without life in it. Mary gave birth to God incarnate. It takes very bad theology indeed to write the things that you've written.

 

[TurtleHare]

This heresy that Jesus isn't always God needs to be addressed by members' pastors because that type of theology is gonna trickle down into other areas and who knows what they will be believing because of the first error.

 

[Full O Beans]

Philippians 2:6-8, people.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

it also says Jesus is the son of god . it also says he gave up his divine rights and BECAME FLESH .

Scripture NEVER states that Jesus gave up divinity... or that He was only occasionally divine. He gave up some USES of his divinity but never his divinity.

Let's say you look at Mr. Obama. And you say, "He is the president of the United States!" And you could refer to his mother (who lives with him in the White House) as the mother of the president (as she is INDEED usally referred to). Now, that doesn't deny that Mr. Obama is ALSO a lawyer, a father, a husband, a college graduate, a golfer, a basketball player.... but he IS the president of the USA. Now, if one said that Obama is ONLY a president - that would be wrong, but no one says that.

The Bible calls Jesus "GOD." The Bible states that JESUS is in very nature GOD. You may run from that.... deny that..... reject that.... protest what the Bible and 2000 years of Christians have so boldly stated..... you may instead embrace ancient condemned heresies (Arianism, etc) but then it's the Bible you are protesting, rejecting, denying.

This ancient title (embraced by a Council nearly all PROTESTANTS embrace and affirm!) embraces two and only two things: Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7, etc., etc.) and Jesus may correctly be called God (John 20:28, etc., etc.). To reject these things is to reject the Bible that teaches them.

Now, you may choose to IGNORE the title.... you may choose to SUBSTITUTE other things that no one on the planet has ever said, ever believed, ever affirmed (creating your own silly strawman in place of the title we're discussing) - and then mock your own silly invented strawman, but that's all just you being silly. NO ONE has said "Mary - the Mother of the Trinity." "Mary - the Creator of the Creator." "Mary - the Mother of Jesus who is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY divine." Or any of the other remarkably silly things you are substuting. Try actually reading the words. If the press can call Obama's mother as "the mother of the president" what is "WRONG" about referring to Mary as the mother of God (unless again, the issue is you deny Scripture and embrace the ancient heresy of Arianism instead)?

he does not begin at mary

Try addressing the title rather than your entirely silly strawmen. It's not "Mary - Who Created God" She bore Jesus according to Luke 2:1-7, etc. And Jesus may correctly be called "GOD" as Scripture itself does (John 20:28). To declare the title wrong is to declare Scripture wrong. To declare the title blasphemy mandates that ergo Scripture commits blasphemy.




.

 

[Josiah]

Philippians 2:6-8, people.

Okay. Let's read it: [Jesus] Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, e humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!


Yup, Jesus IS IN VERY NATURE ..... um...... what? GOD!


And nothing about, "Jesus gave up being God for a spell and for awhile was only a man."


Yes, He gave up some "advantages" of being God, but He never gave up BEING God. He IS (present tense) in his VERY NATURE "GOD". Since you insist it is wrong to refer to Jesus as God, then when after 65 AD (when Paul penned these words) did His very nature change and what Paul clearly states of Him creased, so that He is no longer "IS by his VERY NATURE God?" What year after 65 AD did this momumental change in Jesus happen and He lost His divnity?





.

 

[Full O Beans]

Okay. Let's read it: [Jesus] Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, e humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!


Yup, Jesus IS IN VERY NATURE ..... um...... what? GOD!


And nothing about, "Jesus gave up being God for a spell and for awhile was only a man."


Yes, He gave up some "advantages" of being God, but He never gave up BEING God. He IS (present tense) in his VERY NATURE "GOD". Since you insist it is wrong to refer to Jesus as God, then when after 65 AD (when Paul penned these words) did His very nature change and what Paul clearly states of Him creased, so that He is no longer "IS by his VERY NATURE God?" What year after 65 AD did this momumental change in Jesus happen and He lost His divnity?





.

Of course Jesus is still God, but He gave up His rightful place, His divine privilege, to humble Himself to become a human being. That is who Mary gave birth to--the human being, Jesus.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Of course Jesus is still God

Who bore Jesus, this Jesus whom you insist is God?



.

 

[Full O Beans]

Who bore Jesus, this Jesus whom you insist is God?



.

The girl we know as Mary gave birth to Jesus, the human being. That was her purpose.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Tigger]

Elizabeth referred to Mary as the Mother of my Lord.

Pretty much ends it for me.