Why was Mary necessary?

[Alithis]

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"






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.







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.





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

haha ..misleading to say the least ..he didn't say those thing you imply at all .stop twisting other's words -we can read what he said .. and it wasn't what your twisting it to .

mary is not the mother of God . the scriptures do not say so ever. why you refuse to admit what we all know --well i dont know .

 

[Lamb]

But you agree Mary is Jesus mother.

And don't you at some point agree Jesus is God? At least it's hard to tell since you keep throwing in other stuff that suggests otherwise at times and then you get upset when we question it so it's not like we can get a straight answer out of you.

 

[Full O Beans]

But you agree Mary is Jesus mother.

And don't you at some point agree Jesus is God? At least it's hard to tell since you keep throwing in other stuff that suggests otherwise at times and then you get upset when we question it so it's not like we can get a straight answer out of you.

Does the eternal God who created human beings need a human mother? Answer that one.

 

[Alithis]

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.

not to mentions for the most part i have used the term scriptures lol . however using the term "bible " does not lead people into the furtherance of false doctrine as rome has done with its renaming of "their " mary .-who is clearly not the same mary as the one in the scriptures .

 

[Full O Beans]

not to mentions for the most part i have used the term scriptures lol . however using the term "bible " does not lead people into the furtherance of false doctrine as rome has done with its renaming of "their " mary .-who is clearly not the same mary as the one in the scriptures .

I quite agree. :dance:

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.

Many is the mother of God since Jesus is God and Mary is his mother.

 

[Alithis]

Many is the mother of God since Jesus is God and Mary is his mother.

flul of beans quoted scripture .. you didn't. have not and cant -thats says enough .

The mary "you" speak of ,being the mary of the rcc ..is not the same as the mary of the scriptures -its a different being quiet adverse to the scriptures .

the mary of the scriptures is


not an angel
not the mother of god
not the queen of heaven
not a perpetual virgin
not a co-mediator
not born divine (without sin)

in short .. NOt the same person the scripture speaks of at all . same name different person .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Many is the mother of God since Jesus is God and Mary is his mother.

flul of beans quoted scripture .. you didn't. have not and cant -thats says enough ...

John 1:1, 14, 18; Acts 1:14.

 

[Alithis]

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.







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?








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




.

odd -you have not provided the scripture that so boldly affirms the title "mother of god " .. why not ? well simple. because its not there .God never gave the title . and would not . he would deny his own glory which he shares with none other.

 

[Lamb]

Does the eternal God who created human beings need a human mother? Answer that one.

Need?

Tangent.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does the eternal God who created human beings need a human mother? Answer that one.

God chose to have Blessed Mary as his mother in the incarnation.

 

[Full O Beans]

God chose to have Blessed Mary as his mother in the incarnation.

Yes, God chose the vessel, Mary to be the mother of the flesh and blood Son. But the Three in One God doesn't require a mother, so calling Jesus "The Mother of God" is a false and misleading appellation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, God chose the vessel, Mary to be the mother of the flesh and blood Son. But the Three in One God doesn't require a mother, so calling Jesus "The Mother of God" is a false and misleading appellation.

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Your choice of "flesh & blood" but refusal to state that Mary is HIS mother and not merely a vessel who produced flesh & blood smacks of serious misunderstanding of the incarnation.

Blessed Mary is the mother of God because the man, Jesus Christ, is God incarnate.

 

[Full O Beans]

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Your choice of "flesh & blood" but refusal to state that Mary is HIS mother and not merely a vessel who produced flesh & blood smacks of serious misunderstanding of the incarnation.

Blessed Mary is the mother of God because the man, Jesus Christ, is God incarnate.

Mary is Jesus' mother. Period. I have no problem understanding the incarnation. Mary is not the Mother of God. She is the Mother of Jesus, who is part of the Godhead. The title is man-made, born out of religious fervor and misleading to say the least.

 

[Alithis]

God chose to have Blessed Mary as his mother in the incarnation.

exactly - incarnate basically means .. "in the flesh " he chose her to be the mother of "the flesh " the man .. not GOd -we have well covered this .but thanks for reaffirming it .

- and he wil be called "the SON of God .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Mary is Jesus' mother. ...

Blessed Mary is Jesus' mother and Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God.

 

[Alithis]

Blessed Mary is Jesus' mother and Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God.

the flesh man did not come into being until the time of mary .. But God is eternal . so Nope . but hey repeat what the scripture does not say often enough and you wil .. achieve-> nothing but being repetitive of what the scripture doesn't say -- a very cultic type methodology .

you cant base this man made title on the clear direct unambiguous word of god because God doesnt say it or give it or refer to it at any time .

it does not originate from the one true living and infallible God .. but from the erroneous fallible carnal mind of men inspired by the spirit of This world to usurp authority over people by misleading deceptions .

and since you earlier mocked me wit sarcasm for repeating my posts -which you are now doing also . i feel free to do likewise .
i'll be back soon to repost them .

 

[Alithis]

Mary is Jesus' mother. Period. I have no problem understanding the incarnation. Mary is not the Mother of God. She is the Mother of Jesus, who is part of the Godhead. The title is man-made, born out of religious fervor and misleading to say the least.

yup , yup and ouhhh Yup ...

 

[Josiah]

1. Mary bore Jesus.

Matthew 1:18, "This is how the birth of Jesus came about: His mother Mary...." . So MARY is mother of the one called Jesus.



2. This Jesus may be called God.

John 20:28, "Thomas said to him (JESUS!), 'My Lord and my God'." Note: JESUS (the one he is looking at, the one he is speaking to, the one born in Bethlehem) is..... what? What title was used?

Titus 2:13, "We wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our God and Lord - Jesus." Note: WHO is our God? Can you quote the name Scripture gives? Is it "Jesus?"


So.... Scripture states that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may be rightly called God (as it itself does).


Sure - if you regard Scripture as wrong, false and blaspheming, then the title that affirms the same two points is. But if Scripture is not wrong, false and blaspheming, then the title which affirms the same things is not either.


The rest of your argument is either just silly (as in we can't use titles and words not found in the Bible when you yourself do) or addressed to your own invented silly strawmen, just you ridiculing your own silly strawmen that no one believes or affirms (amazing even you could invent these ideas you mock, so silly and absurd they are).



- Josiah





.

 

[Full O Beans]

The title of "Mother of God" is just one of a list of things that elevate Mary to a position she doesn't have, and God doesn't give....along with the erroneous and blasphemic, "Queen of Heaven", which is attributed in scripture to a pagan goddess, and nothing else. It just furthers the fiction.