Why was Mary necessary?

[George]

i think they got a fright because they thought you were going to post picture pictures of sun god worship .. showing the same symbols the rcc still uses today etc ...

How cute.

 

[Lamb]

Doesn't the triangle point to Son is God though?

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 isn't . 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 calling 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 .

 

[Josiah]

Those protesting this ancient title that is a declaration of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that Protestants generally embrace and accept, have already stated that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may correctly be called "GOD." Scripture obvioulsy affirms both of these things and (while it took some 30 pages of posts to achieve it) they FINALLY admitted Scritpure is correct: these two things are true - Mary DID bore Jesus and Jesus MAY correctly be called "GOD." Thus, their whole protest of these two things is either insincere or they simply are disagreeing with themselves. All this: "It's TRUE, it's BIBLICAL - but it's WRONG, it's BLASTEMPHY!" is just silly (or insincere). Either Mary bore Jesus - as we all admit the Bible says - or she did not. Either Jesus may be called God - as the Bible itself does - or He may not. The ancient title affirms and proclaims those two things (and ONLY those two things): if the two things are right (AS THEY'VE FINALLY ADMITTED) then they are right. Any denial of that is silly or insincere. It's no more complex than that.



.

 

[George]

Those protesting this ancient title that is a declaration of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that Protestants generally embrace and accept, have already stated that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may correctly be called "GOD." Scripture obvioulsy affirms both of these things and (while it took some 30 pages of posts to achieve it) they FINALLY admitted Scritpure is correct: these two things are true - Mary DID bore Jesus and Jesus MAY correctly be called "GOD." Thus, their whole protest of these two things is either insincere or they simply are disagreeing with themselves. All this: "It's TRUE, it's BIBLICAL - but it's WRONG, it's BLASTEMPHY!" is just silly (or insincere). Either Mary bore Jesus - as we all admit the Bible says - or she did not. Either Jesus may be called God - as the Bible itself does - or He may not. The ancient title affirms and proclaims those two things (and ONLY those two things): if the two things are right (AS THEY'VE FINALLY ADMITTED) then they are right. Any denial of that is silly or insincere. It's no more complex than that.



.

Agreed, it's a simple matter, and it's being over complicated.

 

[Full O Beans]

Agreed, it's a simple matter, and it's being over complicated.

Yes, it is a simple matter to refer to Mary as the "mother of Jesus" as is done in scripture, and not confer such religious accolades where God has not said to do so. We call her blessed because He says so!

 

[Alithis]

Quote Originally Posted by Alithis View Post
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 isn't . 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 calling 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 .

Doesn't the triangle point to Son is God though?

i did not draw the picture nor present it , but just as paul makes the clear distinction between God as God and Jesus as "MAN" .. and is not denying anything about the lord JEsus .
i also am making that same distinction .. and not denying anything about the lord Jesus .

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,-the man-Christ Jesus; .........."

 

[Alithis]

Yes, it is a simple matter to refer to Mary as the "mother of Jesus" as is done in scripture, and not confer such religious accolades where God has not said to do so. We call her blessed because He says so!

that will do

 

[Lamb]

Is it wrong to call Jesus "God"? That seems to be what some of you are indicating?

 

[Full O Beans]

Is it wrong to call Jesus "God"? That seems to be what some of you are indicating?

No one in this thread is averse to the understanding that Jesus and Holy Spirit both are God. God is triune---Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But Jesus is NOT the Father. Therein lies the problem with the title that has been given to Mary. It is a contortion that has come out of a religious mindset. It sounded good at one time to a few people and so it was introduced to a people who were used to being dictated to and couldn't think for themselves, or read the scriptures for themselves. That is how it became so deeply imbedded in the RCC. It is a difficult thing to extricate a religious idea from the religious, until the person has a true revelation of Jesus Christ and is touched by the power of His truth, the Holy Spirit. Then, that and many other extra-biblical ideas can be shaken off but good.

 

[George]

Yes, it is a simple matter to refer to Mary as the "mother of Jesus" as is done in scripture, and not confer such religious accolades where God has not said to do so. We call her blessed because He says so!

Lol if you call this calling her Blessed, then I'm a bit worried how you approach other things lol.

 

[Full O Beans]

Lol if you call this calling her Blessed, then I'm a bit worried how you approach other things lol.

Don't worry about me. It isn't about me. Christians honour Mary as God's special choice to carry the Son of God. She is indeed blessed in her unique calling.

 

[George]

I've heard some Christians say that Mary is nothing more than a dead woman and that's it, besides the Mother of Jesus part.

 

[Full O Beans]

I've heard some Christians say that Mary is nothing more than a dead woman and that's it, besides the Mother of Jesus part.

She is dead, physically, but because Jesus was her Saviour, her spirit is alive in heaven with all the other believers who have died, enjoying being in His presence, and looking to the resurrection, and the wedding of the Lamb and His Bride.

 

[George]

She is dead, physically, but because Jesus was her Saviour, her spirit is alive in heaven with all the other believers who have died, enjoying being in His presence, and looking to the resurrection, and the wedding of the Lamb and His Bride.

Of course, but it was more so in a dismissive tone he said it, pretty much in a anti Mary tone if you get what I mean?

 

[Full O Beans]

Of course, but it was more so in a dismissive tone he said it, pretty much in a anti Mary tone if you get what I mean?

I have no idea who said it. We have to put up with all sorts of unbelief of people and their dismissive attitudes toward the gospel. This would be just one area.

 

[Alithis]

Don't worry about me. It isn't about me. Christians honour Mary as God's special choice to carry the Son of God. She is indeed blessed in her unique calling.

yes that is what the scripture says . people wil call her blessed ..
people wil say that she was blessed and she was .
the scripture says many are blessed ,so we see it is no reason to elevate her in any manner above her human station as "some" do .

for all these are called blessed ALSO
...........
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.


But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!


And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”



For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.



“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

 

[Lamb]

No one in this thread is averse to the understanding that Jesus and Holy Spirit both are God. God is triune---Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But Jesus is NOT the Father. Therein lies the problem with the title that has been given to Mary. It is a contortion that has come out of a religious mindset. It sounded good at one time to a few people and so it was introduced to a people who were used to being dictated to and couldn't think for themselves, or read the scriptures for themselves. That is how it became so deeply imbedded in the RCC. It is a difficult thing to extricate a religious idea from the religious, until the person has a true revelation of Jesus Christ and is touched by the power of His truth, the Holy Spirit. Then, that and many other extra-biblical ideas can be shaken off but good.

Do you agree with the following then:

Mary is the Mother of Jesus (and He is God)?

 

[Alithis]

I have no idea who said it. We have to put up with all sorts of unbelief of people and their dismissive attitudes toward the gospel. This would be just one area.

think about it . when some one dismisses the Gospel.. the lord says" they are not rejecting you they are rejecting me ".. so we have reason to be upset but are encouraged not to be .

but when someone dismisses the elevation of mary -we have no reason at all to be upset what so ever .for if we are it merely shows we were idolizing the figure .. after all she is remembered as blessed .. nothing more

 

[Alithis]

Do you agree with the following then:

Mary is the Mother of Jesus (and He is God)?

isnt this attempting to entrap a person into agreeing with a man made additive to scripture ?
where in scripture does it state what you are about to imply ..i have asked that very often.
what does the scripture say ?

by the same token i also ask ..

Do you agree with this

"The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God."

 

[Alithis]

Those protesting this ancient title that is a declaration of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that Protestants generally embrace and accept, have already stated that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may correctly be called "GOD." Scripture obvioulsy affirms both of these things and (while it took some 30 pages of posts to achieve it) they FINALLY admitted Scritpure is correct: these two things are true - Mary DID bore Jesus and Jesus MAY correctly be called "GOD." Thus, their whole protest of these two things is either insincere or they simply are disagreeing with themselves. All this: "It's TRUE, it's BIBLICAL - but it's WRONG, it's BLASTEMPHY!" is just silly (or insincere). Either Mary bore Jesus - as we all admit the Bible says - or she did not. Either Jesus may be called God - as the Bible itself does - or He may not. The ancient title affirms and proclaims those two things (and ONLY those two things): if the two things are right (AS THEY'VE FINALLY ADMITTED) then they are right. Any denial of that is silly or insincere. It's no more complex than that.



.

weak misdirection to my questions .

where's the verse where God calls mary .. "the mother of God " using the term phrase or words "(in any language ) "mother of God " ?