Why was Mary necessary?

[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.


.

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

It's amazing to see the constant: These things are TRUE and biblical BUT these things are WRONG, and blasphemy.

Even more amazing is the perpetual evasion of the points at all - perhaps not even reading the title. There seems to be a LOT of deleting the title and then in lieu of it, in place of it, in stead of it, substituting STRAWMEN of their OWN creation and invention (silly, absurd ones at that). Strawmen such as "Mary - Creator of the Creator" or "Mary - Mother of the Trintiy" or "Mary - the Origin of God" or other equally absurd things that NO ONE on the planet Earth, NO ONE in the past 2000 years has EVER said or proclaimed or affirmed or believed; silly things EASY to rebuke and condemn but not remotely related to the title we're discussing: just silly, absurd, straw men of their OWN invention in order to evade and ignore the title we're discussing, which affirms two things they also affirm as true.


Amazing.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

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 " ?

Your premise seems to be we cannot use terms, titles NOT specifically found in the Bible. But YOU'VE used the word "Bible" repeatedly (including in the post where you insist we cannot use titles not found in "the Bible"). Yet, as you know - as all on the planet know - that title is never found in Scripture. Never. But YOU use it repeatedly, even as you insist we CANNOT use such words/titles. Thus, you don't believe your premise. You don't follow your premise. So since you reject your premise, why should we accept it?



.

 

[psalms 91]

Your premise seems to be we cannot use terms, titles NOT specifically found in the Bible. But YOU'VE used the word "Bible" repeatedly (including in the post where you insist we cannot use titles not found in "the Bible"). Yet, as you know - as all on the planet know - that title is never found in Scripture. Never. But YOU use it repeatedly, even as you insist we CANNOT use such words/titles. Thus, you don't believe your premise. You don't follow your premise. So since you reject your premise, why should we accept it?



.

Wow, bottom line God has no mother, no beginning or end, was always, now did Mary bore jesus, yes? Should she be prayed to, No> that is an idol and not Jesus. The title suggests something that she is not and that God is something other than what we beieve and are told. You can explain it all you want but to the average person who doesnt understand it give the wrong impression about God

 

[Josiah]

Wow, bottom line God has no mother, no beginning or end, was always, now did Mary bore jesus, yes?

In the Bible, Jesus is referred to as "GOD." Is the Bible therefore wrong, is the Bible guilty of blasphemy? .
Did Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7, etc.)? Is Jesus correct called God (John 20:28, etc., etc.)?
IF you agree with Scripture on these points, then you agree with the two points.
The title we are discussing (not the substituted strawmen) affirms those two points, thus you affirm the title as true.

The title suggests something

Wrong. YOU might impute something into it, but the TITLE states no such thing. Respectfully friend, YOU are substituting what YOU theorize and opinionate MIGHT be SUGGESTED for what is actually said. Anyone can "SUGGEST" anything about anything, but that's entirely unrelated to what is stated.

Actually, Lutherans use this title and don't REMOTELY suggest that Mary should be prayed to or is an "idol." So, YOUR substitution "suggestion" or "impression" that YOU impute in lieu of, in place of the actual title simply isn't true.

IMO, friend, IF your issue is praying to Mary or making an idol of Mary, then address those issues. Rather than rebuking two truths Scripture itself affirms (literally, verbatim) - undermining Scrpture, rather than rebuking a statement that comes from an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that we Protestants accept and affirm (and always have). See my point?


Bill, would you consider this?

give the wrong impression about God

When Thomas said to JESUS about JESUS, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" is it possible for readers to get the wrong impression? Sure. Does that make Scripture wrong? Thomas wrong?

When Paul by inspiration pens that JESUS (speaking of that nice person)... "For in Jesus the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," is it possible that someone could get the wrong impression? Maybe. Does THAT ergo make Scripture wrong to state that, does it make Paul guilty of blasphemy?



IF your "issue" is that something MIGHT possibly be misunderstood - then that should be the point, NOT that the statement itself (affirmed directly and verbatim by Scripture) is "wrong" "false" "blasphemy" as has been claimed for 39 pages now - over and over and over and over - by several posters here.


ANYTHING is capable of being misunderstood...... ANYONE can get wrong impressions about anything. That's a whole other enchilada than claiming ergo the STATEMENT itself is false, wrong, blasphemy.


If your "issue" is praying TO Mary or "idols" of Mary - then denounce that. Not truths Scripture itself so boldly affirms, points so central to Christianity, not something from an Ecumencial Council that Protestants also accept. See my point?




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Holy Mary, mother of God, pray or us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

(1 Thessalonians 5:25) Brethren, pray for us.

(2 Thessalonians 3:1) Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

(Hebrews 13:18) Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

 

[Full O Beans]

The "ancient title" is just an "old name" some people made up to sound pious.

Jesus is God in the flesh, yes, but He came as the Son! Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Son of God.

Perhaps a teaching on the Godhead, the triune God and the purposes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is needed.

Further, praying to Mary, a dead human being, when it is only God we are to pray to in the name of Jesus, is a willful sin in those who know this truth but because of their religious indoctrination, persist.

 

[TurtleHare]

People deny the basic because of their added on fears that if they admit the simply stated truth that someone might lump them in with those others. It's a simple statement and a truthful one yet all the arguments are in the wrong direction.

 

[George]

The "ancient title" is just an "old name" some people made up to sound pious.

Jesus is God in the flesh, yes, but He came as the Son! Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Son of God.

Perhaps a teaching on the Godhead, the triune God and the purposes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is needed.

Further, praying to Mary, a dead human being, when it is only God we are to pray to in the name of Jesus, is a willful sin in those who know this truth but because of their religious indoctrination, persist.

lol I think we're good.

 

[Full O Beans]

To God, no one is good but Him.

 

[George]

To God, no one is good but Him.

Okay.

 

[Alithis]

Question-

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

reply:

Your premise seems to be we cannot use terms, titles NOT specifically found in the Bible. But YOU'VE used the word "Bible" repeatedly (including in the post where you insist we cannot use titles not found in "the Bible"). Yet, as you know - as all on the planet know - that title is never found in Scripture. Never. But YOU use it repeatedly, even as you insist we CANNOT use such words/titles. Thus, you don't believe your premise. You don't follow your premise. So since you reject your premise, why should we accept it?

.

so you cant .. got it
you know honesty only stirs respect .
you could just reply .. "i cannot give you such a verse because there is no such verse . " - that would be an honest reply

 

[Josiah]

Your premise seems to be we cannot use terms, titles NOT specifically found in the Bible. But YOU'VE used the title"Bible" repeatedly (including in the post where you insist we cannot use titles not found in "the Bible"). Yet, as you know - as all on the planet know - that title is never found in Scripture. Never. But YOU use it repeatedly, even as you insist we CANNOT use such words/titles. Thus, you don't believe your premise. You don't follow your premise. So since you reject your premise, why should we accept it?[/SIZE]

Question-

reply:

so you cant .. got it

Your premise that we can't use a term or title UNLESS we find it specifically used in Scripture is a premise you reject and you violate. In the very post in which you again STRESSED this premise of yours, this argument of yours, you stated we may not use terms found "in the Bible" but of course, the word "BIBLE" never appears in the Bible, that title of that tome NEVER ONCE appears in Scripture. Thus, in the post about this premise, you indicated you reject your premise, you violate your own premise. Since you reject it and violate it, it is yet another silly argument of yours that WE should accept it and do it.



.

 

[Alithis]

People deny the basic because of their added on fears that if they admit the simply stated truth that someone might lump them in with those others. It's a simple statement and a truthful one yet all the arguments are in the wrong direction.

if it is "truthful " then you can produce it in its direct unambiguous form where the lord JEsus ..who IS truth bestows such title ? this simply stated truth you call it .. show where in scripture it is stated ? if not shown in scripture then it is superimposing the fallible reasonings of man over the word of God . truth can NEVER contradict himself .when its "truth" it will without exception agree with all other truth .
God did not die on the cross .. the "man " christ jesus did
God is not the mediator between man and god .. the MAN christ jesus is
mary is not the mother of god .she is the mother of the flesh and blood "man " -also called by the angels ..and testified to by God himself .. "the son of God "

luke : and he shall be called " the son of God "

these are all direct unambiguous scriptures .

your right to say the argument is in the wrong direction - you are arguing for somthing added by men which the lord NEVER said nor ever even implied .if he did you will produce the scripture where he states it .

 

[Full O Beans]

Your premise that we can't use a term or title UNLESS we find it specifically used in Scripture is a premise you reject and you violate. In the very post in which you again STRESSED this premise of yours, this argument of yours, you stated we may not use terms found in the Bible but of course, the word "BIBLE" never appears in the Bible, that title of that tome NEVER ONCE appears in Scripture. Thus, in the post about this premise, you indicated you reject the premise, you violate the premise. Ergo, you simply shoot yourself in the foot. Again.

The word, "bible" simply means "library". The bible is a library of 66 books that are inspired by God. Of course the word is not in the scriptures.

 

[Alithis]

Your premise that we can't use a term or title UNLESS we find it specifically used in Scripture is a premise you reject and you violate. In the very post in which you again STRESSED this premise of yours, this argument of yours, you stated we may not use terms found in the Bible but of course, the word "BIBLE" never appears in the Bible, that title of that tome NEVER ONCE appears in Scripture. Thus, in the post about this premise, you indicated you reject the premise, you violate the premise. Ergo, you simply shoot yourself in the foot. Again.





.

you know honesty only stirs respect .
you could just reply .. "i cannot give you such a verse because there is no such verse . " - that would be an honest reply.

we cannot and should not use a term phrase or title which God himself does not give when that phrase term or title is in opposition to who the one true living and eternal God is .
he is eternal having no beginning and no end - God has no mother .
in every sense the title is blasphemy always has been and always will be .
there is no salvation gained by using it and no salvation lost by not using it -it has no value of truth whatsoever and is utterly disrespectful of God .

i know you have already turned around and said " but the term mother of god doesnt mean mother of god .. -as weak a cover up attempt that was .. if words do not mean what words say then that is mimicking the serpent in the garden with deceptive misleading ambiguity -yet again . if you need to explain away the meaning of the words "mother of god " then it is obvious that they should not be used i the first place
innocence needs no justification - for instance ,i NEVER have to justify using the title king of kings ..in reference to the lord Jesus .. it is a true title . it is in the scriptures it is clear an unambiguous it is nt given my mankind ,it originates from God

as opposed to the term= " mother of God "= it is not true ,it is not in the scripture it is given BY MAN it is unclear and ambiguous it does not originate from God
yet you insist that i adhere to it and accept it because why ? because lots of men said so ?.. thats it ,that is the whole of your argument . lots of men said so and that makes it true ? no direct unambiguous scripture .just "lots of men said so " -well lots of men have said it is not so also ,big deal .

the moment we define truth by what the majority says as opposed to what the word of god says -we start doing insane wickedness ,like appointing gay clergy .. hmmmm and we start calling good evil and EVIL good .
yes thats the result of allowing just a little lie ,a little leaven leavens the whole lump .
it is never a small thing to turn a blind eye to a doctrine that simply is not in the scripture .

it only take a slight deviation from the path to send multitudes off that path .

 

[Josiah]

you know honesty only stirs respect .
you could just reply .. "i cannot give you such a verse because there is no such verse . " - that would be an honest reply.

I never said this Title per se exists in the Bible. But then neither does the title "BIBLE." Or "Trinity" Or "Altar Call" Or "Youth Pastor" or "Sunday School" or "Preacher" or "Reverend" .... so do you forbid the use of those titles, those words?

Your premise is that we cannot use words/terms/titles unless found "in the Bible." That's what you posted..... if it's not "in the Bible." But of course, that title is not found in the Bible - the Bible NEVER refers to itself by that title. But YOU used it. Thus proving YOU reject your premise, YOU don't follow your own premise. Since you don't accept your premise, I'm amazed you want everyone else to.

we cannot and should not use a term phrase or title which God himself does not

I see. So you will start a thread insisting we cannot use the title "Bible" AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE..... You will condemn all who use the title "Trinity" or "Sunday School" or "Praise Team" or "Youth Pastor" or "Reverend" or "Sunday School" - all titles never found in Scripture, ones for which there is NO evidence GOD ever used, and ones we NEVER find in Scripture.

in every sense the title is blasphemy always has been and always will be .

Then you call Scripture blasphemous. It states that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called God. If these things are wrong, then Scripture is wrong.


Now, I realize, in spite of your knowing better, you continue to TRY to evade the title, ignore it and lay it aside. And in stead of the title, in lieu of it, in place of it, you like to create and invent your own absurd strawmen. Silly stuff like "Mary - Creator of the Creator" and "Mary - Source and Origin of the Trinity" and other laughable stuff of your own wild imagination that NO ONE has ever said or proclaimed or believed or used (none other able to invite that crazy stuff!). Yes, THOSE silly ides YOU invented are silly things you invented. THIS title affirms two and only two things: Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7 etc., etc.) and Jesus may be called "GOD" (John 20:28, etc., etc.). If these things are wrong (and thus SCRIPTURE is wrong), then you need to support that these things are wrong. But you haven't, you just keep going to your silly, absurd strawmen that no one even has taught up (AMAZING you'd invent these crazy ideas!!!). IF you agree that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus is divine then the title is correct And all your silly running to your own absurd, creatively invented strawmen won't change that.

yet you insist that i adhere to it and accept it because why ?

I said the two things it affirms are true. You insist they are wrong, false, "BLASPHEMY". But you've not shown it is false to call Mary the mother of Jesus (which Scripture states) or that it is wrong to refer to Jesus as "GOD" (as Scripture does). You have not shown Luke 2:1-7 or John 20:28 for example to be "blasphemy." Only that your own invented, amazing, laughable, silly, wrong, absurd STRAWMEN of your OWN invention are wrong (which no one would deny).

thats it ,that is the whole of your argument . lots of men said so and that makes it true ?

Perhaps you've not read any of my posts in this thread. I have NEVER remotely said the title is true because MEN say so. I said the two things it affirms are what GOD says.

What you've not done is substantiated YOUR point: that it is "wrong, false and blasphemous" to indicate that Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may rightly be referred to as God. I (and may others) have quoted verbatim Scriptures where Mary is referred to directly and specifically as the "MOTHER" of Jesus. And I (and many others) have quoted verbatim Scriptures were Jesus is referred to directly and specifically as "GOD." Scripture directly and specifically affirms these things. So does the title. YOU are the one saying that these things are "wrong, false, blasphemous" The ball is in your court why Scipture and this title are wrong.

And please don't keep going back to your premise that we can't use terms not found in the Bible (a title never found in the Bible)..... you don't believe that point, you don't apply that point, you don't agree with your own point so why should we?






.

 

[psalms 91]

I never said this Title per se exists in the Bible. But then neither does the title "BIBLE." Or "Trinity" Or "Altar Call" Or "Youth Pastor" or "Sunday School" or "Preacher" or "Reverend" .... so do you forbid the use of those titles, those words?

Your premise is that we cannot use words/terms/titles unless found "in the Bible." That's what you posted..... if it's not "in the Bible." But of course, that title is not found in the Bible - the Bible NEVER refers to itself by that title. But YOU used it. Thus proving YOU reject your premise, YOU don't follow your own premise. Since you don't accept your premise, I'm amazed you want everyone else to.







I see. So you will start a thread insisting we cannot use the title "Bible" AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE..... You will condemn all who use the title "Trinity" or "Sunday School" or "Praise Team" or "Youth Pastor" or "Reverend" or "Sunday School" - all titles never found in Scripture, ones for which there is NO evidence GOD ever used, and ones we NEVER find in Scripture.





Then you call Scripture blasphemous. It states that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called God. If these things are wrong, then Scripture is wrong.


Now, I realize, in spite of your knowing better, you continue to TRY to evade the title, ignore it and lay it aside. And in stead of the title, in lieu of it, in place of it, you like to create and invent your own absurd strawmen. Silly stuff like "Mary - Creator of the Creator" and "Mary - Source and Origin of the Trinity" and other laughable stuff of your own wild imagination that NO ONE has ever said or proclaimed or believed or used (none other able to invite that crazy stuff!). Yes, THOSE silly ides YOU invented are silly things you invented. THIS title affirms two and only two things: Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7 etc., etc.) and Jesus may be called "GOD" (John 20:28, etc., etc.). If these things are wrong (and thus SCRIPTURE is wrong), then you need to support that these things are wrong. But you haven't, you just keep going to your silly, absurd strawmen that no one even has taught up (AMAZING you'd invent these crazy ideas!!!). IF you agree that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus is divine then the title is correct And all your silly running to your own absurd, creatively invented strawmen won't change that.







I said the two things it affirms are true. You insist they are wrong, false, "BLASPHEMY". But you've not shown it is false to call Mary the mother of Jesus (which Scripture states) or that it is wrong to refer to Jesus as "GOD" (as Scripture does). You have not shown Luke 2:1-7 or John 20:28 for example to be "blasphemy." Only that your own invented, amazing, laughable, silly, wrong, absurd STRAWMEN of your OWN invention are wrong (which no one would deny).







Perhaps you've not read any of my posts in this thread. I have NEVER remotely said the title is true because MEN say so. I said the two things it affirms are what GOD says.

What you've not done is substantiated YOUR point: that it is "wrong, false and blasphemous" to indicate that Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may rightly be referred to as God. I (and may others) have quoted verbatim Scriptures where Mary is referred to directly and specifically as the "MOTHER" of Jesus. And I (and many others) have quoted verbatim Scriptures were Jesus is referred to directly and specifically as "GOD." Scripture directly and specifically affirms these things. So does the title. YOU are the one saying that these things are "wrong, false, blasphemous" The ball is in your court why Scipture and this title are wrong.

And please don't keep going back to your premise that we can't use terms not found in the Bible (a title never found in the Bible)..... you don't believe that point, you don't apply that point, you don't agree with your own point so why should we?






.

Just because the two things it affirms are true does not make the title all right, it is deceptive and misused for sure

 

[Josiah]

Just because the two things it affirms are true does not make the title all right, it is deceptive and misused for sure

If the two things it affirms are true, then how can these two things be "wrong, false, blasphemy?"

IF the point had been "the title can be confusing" or "the title can be misused" then I don't think any here (least of all me) would have disagreed (to much). In fact, in the DOZENS of threads on this that I have participated in since I was 10 years old (dozens and dozens of them), I've often said that it now seems a few modern "Evangelicals" (especially in the USA and Australia) seem confused by this. But that's not the issue we're having, we're discussing if these two things are WRONG, FALSE, and specifically BLASPHEMY - that Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7 etc.) and that this Jesus may rightly be called "GOD" (John 20:28) - two things SCRIPTURE affirms, two things virtually all Christians agree to (well, not Arian heretics): this title, which affirms those two points Scripture states, comes from an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that all Protestant denominations known to me affirm, and so they affirm this title - and thus the two things it affirms: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus is divine (and thus may rightly be called "GOD" as Scirpture itself does, as the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils do, as the Nicene Creed does, as every Protestant denomination known to me does).

Yes, I know.... ANYTHING can be misunderstood....... ANYTHING van be "confusion" to someone..... ANYTHING can be misused. But THAT doesn't make it ergo "false, wrong, blasphemy." DO YOU SEE OUR POINT?

Yes, I know.... saying Jesus is divine.... and indeed may be called "GOD" as Scripture itself does.... may be confusing to some. But that doesn't make this Christian, Biblical affirmation ergo "false, wrong, and blasphemous" Do you see our point?

And while we've been repeatedly saying (for how many pages now), while it MAY be said that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus MAY be called God - no one said you must affirm EITHER of those things, no one has wildly suggested YOU must refer to Mary as Jesus' "MOTHER" or that YOU are mandated to call Jesus "GOD" (although Scripture, of course, does both - so do all Protestant denominations known to me, so does the Nicene Creed, so does the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.... and so does this ancient title). The POINT has been these affirmations are 'wrong, false and blasphemous" = THAT is what many of us have been challenging. DO YOU SEE OUR POINT?


Please read the post from me that you quoted again. And this. And consider..... I typically find you reasonable, sincere and fair - even if we don't always totally agree.




- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

If the two things it affirms are true, then how can these two things be "wrong, false, blasphemy?"

IF the point had been "the title can be confusing" or "the title can be misused" then I don't think any here (least of all me) would have disagreed (to much). In fact, in the DOZENS of threads on this that I have participated in since I was 10 years old (dozens and dozens of them), I've often said that it now seems a few modern "Evangelicals" (especially in the USA and Australia) seem confused by this. But that's not the issue we're having, we're discussing if these two things are WRONG, FALSE, and specifically BLASPHEMY - that Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7 etc.) and that this Jesus may rightly be called "GOD" (John 20:28) - two things SCRIPTURE affirms, two things virtually all Christians agree to (well, not Arian heretics): this title, which affirms those two points Scripture states, comes from an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that all Protestant denominations known to me affirm, and so they affirm this title - and thus the two things it affirms: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus is divine (and thus may rightly be called "GOD" as Scirpture itself does, as the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils do, as the Nicene Creed does, as every Protestant denomination known to me does).

Yes, I know.... ANYTHING can be misunderstood....... ANYTHING van be "confusion" to someone..... ANYTHING can be misused. But THAT doesn't make it ergo "false, wrong, blasphemy." DO YOU SEE OUR POINT?

Yes, I know.... saying Jesus is divine.... and indeed may be called "GOD" as Scripture itself does.... may be confusing to some. But that doesn't make this Christian, Biblical affirmation ergo "false, wrong, and blasphemous" Do you see our point?

And while we've been repeatedly saying (for how many pages now), while it MAY be said that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus MAY be called God - no one said you must affirm EITHER of those things, no one has wildly suggested YOU must refer to Mary as Jesus' "MOTHER" or that YOU are mandated to call Jesus "GOD" (although Scripture, of course, does both - so do all Protestant denominations known to me, so does the Nicene Creed, so does the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.... and so does this ancient title). The POINT has been these affirmations are 'wrong, false and blasphemous" = THAT is what many of us have been challenging. DO YOU SEE OUR POINT?


Please read the post from me that you quoted again. And this. And consider..... I typically find you reasonable, sincere and fair - even if we don't always totally agree.




- Josiah

I affirm the two things are true I do not agree with the title and never will it is verymisleading as evidenced by praying to Mary, that is against scripture

 

[Josiah]

If the two things it affirms are true, then how can these two things be "wrong, false, blasphemy?"

IF the point had been "the title can be confusing" or "the title can be misused" then I don't think any here (least of all me) would have disagreed (to much). In fact, in the DOZENS of threads on this that I have participated in since I was 10 years old (dozens and dozens of them), I've often said that it now seems a few modern "Evangelicals" (especially in the USA and Australia) seem confused by this. But that's not the issue we're having, we're discussing if these two things are WRONG, FALSE, and specifically BLASPHEMY - that Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7 etc.) and that this Jesus may rightly be called "GOD" (John 20:28) - two things SCRIPTURE affirms, two things virtually all Christians agree to (well, not Arian heretics): this title, which affirms those two points Scripture states, comes from an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that all Protestant denominations known to me affirm, and so they affirm this title - and thus the two things it affirms: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus is divine (and thus may rightly be called "GOD" as Scirpture itself does, as the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils do, as the Nicene Creed does, as every Protestant denomination known to me does).

Yes, I know.... ANYTHING can be misunderstood....... ANYTHING van be "confusion" to someone..... ANYTHING can be misused. But THAT doesn't make it ergo "false, wrong, blasphemy." DO YOU SEE OUR POINT?

Yes, I know.... saying Jesus is divine.... and indeed may be called "GOD" as Scripture itself does.... may be confusing to some. But that doesn't make this Christian, Biblical affirmation ergo "false, wrong, and blasphemous" Do you see our point?

And while we've been repeatedly saying (for how many pages now), while it MAY be said that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus MAY be called God - no one said you must affirm EITHER of those things, no one has wildly suggested YOU must refer to Mary as Jesus' "MOTHER" or that YOU are mandated to call Jesus "GOD" (although Scripture, of course, does both - so do all Protestant denominations known to me, so does the Nicene Creed, so does the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.... and so does this ancient title). The POINT has been these affirmations are 'wrong, false and blasphemous" = THAT is what many of us have been challenging. DO YOU SEE OUR POINT?


Please read the post from me that you quoted again. And this. And consider..... I typically find you reasonable, sincere and fair - even if we don't always totally agree.




- Josiah

I affirm the two things are true

Then you AGREE with me (and several others posting affirmatively of these points in this thread).
And you thus DISAGREE with those claiming these are "false, wrong and blasphemous"

I do not agree with the title

Friend, it is simply impossible that you BOTH agree with the points AND disagree with them. Either the points are correct or they are incorrect; either you agree with them or you disagree with them.

it is verymisleading

PERHAPS..... but then that has nothing to do with these points ergo being "false, wrong and blasphemous." That's a whole other enchilada.

Please re-read what you quoted from me.

evidenced by praying to Mary, that is against scripture

There are some 70 million Lutherans that embrace these two affirmations of Scripture and thus the title..... would you please document to me that those 70 million Lutherans ERGO pray TO Mary expecting HER to grant their petitions?
There are some 90 million Anglicans that embrace these two affirmations of Scripture and thus the title..... would you please document to me that those 90 million Anglicans ERGO pray TO Mary expecting HER to grant their petitions?

This title was affirmed by an Ecumenical Council (accepted by all Protestant denominations known to me) in 687 AD officially. Can you document that all Christians from 687 (when this became OFFICIAL) prayed to Mary as who whould grant the petition BECAUSE of these two affirmations and the title that proclaims them?

If you can't, my friend, then I don't think there is substantiation that these two biblical affirmations (and the title that proclaims them ) causes people to pray TO Mary and to regard HER as the one who grants the petitions. I suspose ANYTHING can be misused for ANYTHING - but I'm looking for the documentation of the cause/effect that you claim.

But that aside, the only issue that we've been addressing is NOT whether titles, words, etc. CAN be misunderstood or misused (I think that's probably true of just about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING), the only issue several of us have been discussing is the accusation that these proclaimations are "false, wrong and blasphemous" - which you've now agreed is NOT the case. Welcome to our side!



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah