Why was Mary necessary?

[Alithis]

...

 

[Alithis]

And i will keep repeating it and will not cease to agree with the word of God.and will not accept mans word imposed over the word of God ,Get used to it.

God in the scriptures does*not*Give mary the title mother of god .. because she is not the mother of God ..she is the mother of the flesh man .

some refuse to see this distinction . the word of God became flesh .. the word of god did not become God .mary is not the mother of god she is the mother of the flesh man .

for those who so struggle with this simple distinction*
consider more scripture from paul to Timothy -"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,*the man*Christ Jesus; .........." note he does not say "the God Christ Jesus .. but the MAN . paul has no problem making the distinction ,knowing that the word of god gave up his divine right and became .. A MAN .*And at the same time Paul recognises who the lord jesus is ,yet still makes this distinction between the man . and GOD , between the son and the father .

--------------
And for what purpose is mary given that title since God did not give it nor ever will . ?
what is to be gained ?
why the persistence in it ?*
should we not be more concerned with glorifying the LOrd Jesus ?

The apostles never saw fit to mention it in ANY of the thier epistles to the congregations throughout the evangelized world ..
no, only a group with its own agenda, an agenda opposed to the truth of the lord JEsus, saw fit to introduce a title that GOD NEVER gave .*

and why ? because when we read of mary and all that describes her in the scripture (which is not a lot ) and then we read of the mary of the*
RCC

-we see plainly .. we are not speaking of the same person .


the mary of the bible is NOT called the mother of GOD
the mary of the bible is NOT the queen of heaven*
the mary of the bible is NOT born devine having no sin
the mary of the bible is NOT a perpetual virgin
the mary of the bible is NOT a co-mediator ...

so this mary they speak of ,is a different person then the mary in the Holy scripture .. she is a moon goddess of pagan times dating back to nimrods mother .. the mother of the "sun" god -do the research .
(given a variance of names over the ages including queen of heaven) -that is who the rcc is describing with all those titles.*
that is why NONE of those titles are in the scriptures . because (all)scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost .. and none of those titles originate in God -they are not of the Holy Spirit but of the spirit of antiChrist who is already at work in the children of disobedience .

 

[Full O Beans]

See, there is the problem...you added baggage. You said "lofty, pretentious and presumptuous" which is why you argue against something that has nothing to do with those adjectives. "Mother of God" does not mean loft. Does not mean pretentious. Does not mean presumptuous. It means that Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother.

Yes, the title is a pretentious, presumptuous assignment that God doesn't give. Our Triune God has no mother.

 

[TurtleHare]

Yes, the title is a pretentious, presumptuous assignment that God doesn't give. Our Triune God has no mother.

God hasn't given those derogatory labels either that you chose you know. So what do we see scripture call Mary because it's not the attitude you have toward her but you are too caught up in trying to turn something that shows she was blessed and make it an evil thing and you know it's not.

 

[Full O Beans]

God hasn't given those derogatory labels either that you chose you know. So what do we see scripture call Mary because it's not the attitude you have toward her but you are too caught up in trying to turn something that shows she was blessed and make it an evil thing and you know it's not.

Mary was indeed blessed. What does that have to do with this? We all know and accept that the Son of God, Jesus, came from heaven through Mary's womb. She is the mother of the flesh and blood Saviour, the Son of the living God, the Father. But she is not the Father's mother. She is not the Spirit's mother. She is connected to the Son as His earthly mother. That was her assignment by God, and religiously adding to her the designation of "Mother of God" as well as adding the other demonic and unscriptural "Queen of Heaven" is all a human construct.

It is not of God, but of man. Man does things very badly, and this is just one instance.

 

[Josiah]

And i will keep repeating it and will not cease to agree with the word of God.and will not accept mans word imposed over the word of God ,Get used to it.

Then you denounce the word "Trinity" and the teaching thereof, since God never used that title in the Bible.
And you will now denounce me for using the title "Bible" since God never used that word in the Bible, either.


I find it remarkable to see posters stating the two affirmations here are TRUE and BIBLICAL (Mary bore Jesus and Jesus is divine - God) and then insisting the very things they just said are true are therefore wrong, false, blasphemy. Amazing. Incredible.



You seem to want to insist that Scripture is wrong all those times it refers to JESUS as "GOD." Your point here seems to be He must be called by ALL the things that apply to him, not just one aspect, so that we may ONLY refer to Him as "God, Man, Hebrew, Male, Middle-Aged, from Galilee, etc., etc., etc. " To just state one aspect (albeit the most important one) you seem to insist is wrong, including all the times Scripture does what you condemn (Scripture NEVER uses ALL the aspects of Jesus when referring to Him). So, I take it you would denounce when the news refers to Mr. Obama as PRESIDENT Obama since he is not ONLY EXCLUSIVE president - he is also a man, a husband, a father, a lawyer, a citizen, a licensed car driver, a college graduate, a golfer - your whole point seems to be because Jesus is not ONLY God we cannot call Him "GOD." So I'm sure you never refer to Obama as PRESIDENT Obama since he is not ONLY the president. Do you denounce all those who use that title for Obama with the same zeal you denounce calling Jesus "GOD", do you insist it's "wrong" and "false" to call him PRESIDENT Obama? Your point is silly.... and one you don't accept so why should we?

to give JEsus the title "LORD" ?

So, Scripture is wrong to refer to JESUS as "Lord" too? Blasphemy to refer to Mary as the "Mother of the Lord?" So, you denounce Scripture, St. Luke and Elizebeth in Luke 1:43 when she refers to Mary as "the mother of my LORD." Scripture says Mary is the "Mother" of the "LORD." Is Scripture here thus blasphemy, wrong, false? Was Elizabeth speaking from the devil, was some demon speaking heresy and blasphemy through Elizabeth in Luke 1:43? Do you denounce and repudiate Luke 1:43 for calling Mary the "Mother of the Lord?" Rebuking Scripture there?




Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And i will keep repeating it ...

Seems like spam to me.

 

[TurtleHare]

Mary was indeed blessed. What does that have to do with this? We all know and accept that the Son of God, Jesus, came from heaven through Mary's womb. She is the mother of the flesh and blood Saviour, the Son of the living God, the Father. But she is not the Father's mother. She is not the Spirit's mother. She is connected to the Son as His earthly mother. That was her assignment by God, and religiously adding to her the designation of "Mother of God" as well as adding the other demonic and unscriptural "Queen of Heaven" is all a human construct.

It is not of God, but of man. Man does things very badly, and this is just one instance.

If you take a little time to actually read through the thread instead of assuming then you will see that it's been addressed already that not a soul is saying Mary is the mother of origin or any of that other stuff. It will save us so much time in having to tell you. thanx

 

[Full O Beans]

If you take a little time to actually read through the thread instead of assuming then you will see that it's been addressed already that not a soul is saying Mary is the mother of origin or any of that other stuff. It will save us so much time in having to tell you. thanx

Please do the same. You will see that this title is really an unwise one.

 

[Alithis]

Then you denounce the word "Trinity" and the teaching thereof, since God never used that title in the Bible.
And you will now denounce me for using the title "Bible" since God never used that word in the Bible, either.


I find it remarkable to see posters stating the two affirmations here are TRUE and BIBLICAL (Mary bore Jesus and Jesus is divine - God) and then insisting the very things they just said are true are therefore wrong, false, blasphemy. Amazing. Incredible.



You seem to want to insist that Scripture is wrong all those times it refers to JESUS as "GOD." Your point here seems to be He must be called by ALL the things that apply to him, not just one aspect, so that we may ONLY refer to Him as "God, Man, Hebrew, Male, Middle-Aged, from Galilee, etc., etc., etc. " To just state one aspect (albeit the most important one) you seem to insist is wrong, including all the times Scripture does what you condemn (Scripture NEVER uses ALL the aspects of Jesus when referring to Him). So, I take it you would denounce when the news refers to Mr. Obama as PRESIDENT Obama since he is not ONLY EXCLUSIVE president - he is also a man, a husband, a father, a lawyer, a citizen, a licensed car driver, a college graduate, a golfer - your whole point seems to be because Jesus is not ONLY God we cannot call Him "GOD." So I'm sure you never refer to Obama as PRESIDENT Obama since he is not ONLY the president. Do you denounce all those who use that title for Obama with the same zeal you denounce calling Jesus "GOD", do you insist it's "wrong" and "false" to call him PRESIDENT Obama? Your point is silly.... and one you don't accept so why should we?






So, Scripture is wrong to refer to JESUS as "Lord" too? Blasphemy to refer to Mary as the "Mother of the Lord?" So, you denounce Scripture, St. Luke and Elizebeth in Luke 1:43 when she refers to Mary as "the mother of my LORD." Scripture says Mary is the "Mother" of the "LORD." Is Scripture here thus blasphemy, wrong, false? Was Elizabeth speaking from the devil, was some demon speaking heresy and blasphemy through Elizabeth in Luke 1:43? Do you denounce and repudiate Luke 1:43 for calling Mary the "Mother of the Lord?" Rebuking Scripture there?




Thank you.


- Josiah



.

My my this is a very twisted and misrepresented post.
Stating things in a twisted light in a manner i did not say them nor mean them.

To the moderation team.
This is an a
Example of Dishonesty.this is not truthful posting. It is a poorly veiled untruth.

~~~
Now .i have catorgoricly stated many times that i fully agree with everthing scriptures says about the lord jesus.
I have showed how paul also makes the distinction between Jeses the word of God..and jesus the flesh man. Is Paul also implying heresy or does that accusation only apply to me for posting what Paul wrote?

And your correct.. On the term "trinity" .Lammchin can attest to it from christian forumns.where it is documented that i have said. I dont often discuss the 'term" trinity because..it is not in the bible. It is a man made tern in a poor attempt to incapsulate a limited comprehension of the incomprehensable God.
Thus i prefer the term "God head".because it IS in the bible.... So yout attemp to yet again attack me the person instead of accept what the bible plainly does and does not say is a wasted effort.
Making false accusations at me and misrepresenting past things i have said..
Will not make the title "mother of God" appear in Gods word. Because he did not say it and we follow him..not man.

 

[Alithis]

God in the scriptures does*not*Give mary the title mother of god .. because she is not the mother of God ..she is the mother of the flesh man .

some refuse to see this distinction . the word of God became flesh .. the word of god did not become God .mary is not the mother of god she is the mother of the flesh man .

for those who so struggle with this simple distinction
consider more scripture from paul to Timothy -"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,-the man-Christ Jesus; .........." note he does not say "the God Christ Jesus .. but the MAN . paul has no problem making the distinction ,knowing that the word of god gave up his divine right and became .. A MAN .*And at the same time Paul recognises who the lord jesus is ,yet still makes this distinction between the man . and GOD , between the son and the father . is paul denying who the lord Jesus is by making this distinction.. ?-don't be silly of course he is not . Nor Am I .

--------------
And for what purpose is mary given that title by Some MEn of religious influence some 400 approximate years after the book of acts ? since God did not give it nor ever will . ?
what is to be gained ?- control
why the persistence in it ?*-they are unrepentant
should we not be more concerned with glorifying the LOrd Jesus ?-yes we should for he ALONE is worthy of such praise .
do we deny that JEsus is lord by denying somthing HE as LORD has never said ? (ie that mary is the mother of "GOD" ) nope .
where in his word does he says "who so ever denies mary is the mother of God is denying me "? well, he doesnt say that ,because she isnt . and denying the title given by MAN ..in noi ways denies the lord JEsus or his written holy Scriptures . but it does deny some folks opinion . and they get upset and make false accusations ..but they did that to the lord Jesus also.

The apostles never saw fit to mention a title for many in ANY of the thier epistles to the congregations throughout the evangelized world ..
No, only a group with its own agenda, an agenda opposed to the truth of the lord JEsus, saw fit to introduce a title that GOD NEVER gave .*

and why ? because when we read of mary and all that describes her in the scripture (which is not a lot ) and then we read of the mary of the*
RCC

-we see plainly .. we are not speaking of the same person .


the mary of the bible is NOT called the mother of GOD
the mary of the bible is NOT the queen of heaven*
the mary of the bible is NOT born devine having no sin
the mary of the bible is NOT a perpetual virgin
the mary of the bible is NOT a co-mediator ...

so this mary they speak of ,is a different person then the mary in the Holy scripture .. she is a moon goddess of pagan times dating back to nimrods mother .. the mother of the "sun" god -do the research .
(given a variance of names over the ages including queen of heaven) -that is who the rcc is describing with all those titles.*
that is why NONE of those titles are in the scriptures . because (all)scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost .. and none of those titles originate in God -they are not of the Holy Spirit but of the spirit of antiChrist who is already at work in the children of disobedience .

i repeat this text because it answers many of the False accusations without me having to type and get sent of down ambiguous rabbit holes by those who want to hide this .information./ .

and the main point in summary of the tire thread topic.

why was mary necessary ? ANSWER : mary was not , but a VIRGIN of the correct linage who was betrothed to joseph was .For god had foretold that the sign to israel of the messiah (among other signs) would be that he was to be born of a virgin . other then that "mary has no other attribute . "

-then the topic morphed to caling her "the mother of God " -which she is not she is the mother of the flesh MAn .
-----------------
No one has been able to bring forth the scriptural text where God in ANY form cals mary "the mother of God " using the words "mother of God " -
the question is - where in scripture does GOD call mary or refer to mary in present past or future tense as " mother of God " ?

the question is not - How can you mash together a few verses to self justify why you "call her" that .
the question is where in scripture does god ever do so ,using the term, phrase or words .." Mother of God " ?

see if you can answer the question honestly without making accusations and attacking the asker .

 

[George]

Please do the same. You will see that this title is really an unwise one.

And please do the same as well, it helps to read the thread rather than constructing your view on how the thread has gone, when in reality your beliefs of how this has gone has not been said anywhere in the thread.

 

[Full O Beans]

And please do the same as well, it helps to read the thread rather than constructing your view on how the thread has gone, when in reality your beliefs of how this has gone has not been said anywhere in the thread.

LOL! Whatevah!

Please do the same!

 

[George]

God in the scriptures does*not*Give mary the title mother of god .. because she is not the mother of God ..she is the mother of the flesh man .

some refuse to see this distinction . the word of God became flesh .. the word of god did not become God .mary is not the mother of god she is the mother of the flesh man .

for those who so struggle with this simple distinction
consider more scripture from paul to Timothy -"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,-the man-Christ Jesus; .........." note he does not say "the God Christ Jesus .. but the MAN . paul has no problem making the distinction ,knowing that the word of god gave up his divine right and became .. A MAN .*And at the same time Paul recognises who the lord jesus is ,yet still makes this distinction between the man . and GOD , between the son and the father .

--------------
And for what purpose is mary given that title since God did not give it nor ever will . ?
what is to be gained ?
why the persistence in it ?*
should we not be more concerned with glorifying the LOrd Jesus ?

The apostles never saw fit to mention it in ANY of the thier epistles to the congregations throughout the evangelized world ..
no, only a group with its own agenda, an agenda opposed to the truth of the lord JEsus, saw fit to introduce a title that GOD NEVER gave .*

and why ? because when we read of mary and all that describes her in the scripture (which is not a lot ) and then we read of the mary of the*
RCC

-we see plainly .. we are not speaking of the same person .


the mary of the bible is NOT called the mother of GOD
the mary of the bible is NOT the queen of heaven*
the mary of the bible is NOT born devine having no sin
the mary of the bible is NOT a perpetual virgin
the mary of the bible is NOT a co-mediator ...

so this mary they speak of ,is a different person then the mary in the Holy scripture .. she is a moon goddess of pagan times dating back to nimrods mother .. the mother of the "sun" god -do the research .
(given a variance of names over the ages including queen of heaven) -that is who the rcc is describing with all those titles.*
that is why NONE of those titles are in the scriptures . because (all)scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost .. and none of those titles originate in God -they are not of the Holy Spirit but of the spirit of antiChrist who is already at work in the children of disobedience .

You can keep posting your wall of text, but if anything it seems you're not wanting to address the thread seriously by constantly posting the same thing over and over. You don't want to use the title? Don't use it then, as you're not being forced to.

knowing that the word of god gave up his divine right and became .. A MAN

So if he became a man, then how did He go to Hell? He lead a sinless life and according to some in this thread, gained salvation as all the other humans do. So if He was just a human, then He had no way to go to Hell, because He fit the path of going to Heaven and had no ability to go to Hell and destroy death.

 

[George]

LOL! Whatevah!

Please do the same!

Oh trust me I have, and quite frankly it has shown that you really have no interest in discussing this topic, but rather disrupting it.

 

[Full O Beans]

So if he became a man, then how did He go to Hell? He lead a sinless life and according to some in this thread, gained salvation as all the other humans do. So if He was just a human, then He had no way to go to Hell, because He fit the path of going to Heaven and had no ability to go to Hell and destroy death.

Jesus IS Salvation. He didn't gain salvation. Jesus went to Hades, and did not go to the place of punishment---or hell as we call it. He went there to retrieve Old Testament saints who trusted in their coming Messiah and led them out of there. He preached SALVATION---HIMSELF, which was bought for them by His shed blood.

 

[Full O Beans]

Oh trust me I have, and quite frankly it has shown that you really have no interest in discussing this topic, but rather disrupting it.

False, of course. I am fully able and willing to carry on discussion here.

 

[George]

Jesus IS Salvation. He didn't gain salvation. Jesus went to Hades, and did not go to the place of punishment---or hell as we call it. He went there to retrieve Old Testament saints who trusted in their coming Messiah and led them out of there. He preached SALVATION---HIMSELF, which was bought for them by His shed blood.

I quote from this thread:

had to receive the Holy Spirit and ask God just as man has to.

And nevertheless, that didn't answer my question.

 

[Full O Beans]

I quote from this thread:



And nevertheless, that didn't answer my question.

Could you please flesh that out a bit? It doesn't make sense. Your question was skewed, because Jesus didn't go to hell, the place of punishment. His resurrection was His victory over death.

 

[George]

Could you please flesh that out a bit? It doesn't make sense. Your question was skewed, because Jesus didn't go to hell, the place of punishment. His resurrection was His victory over death.

Did He not go down to Hell and shatter death?