Why was Mary necessary?

[Lamb]

The only elevation are the man made ones brought up in this thread that don't have anything to do with the topic.

 

[psalms 91]

And opf course this title doesnt confuse people and lead to them prayingh to her, not related at all

 

[Full O Beans]

The only elevation are the man made ones brought up in this thread that don't have anything to do with the topic.

That's correct. "Mother of God" is a man contrived appellation, and the topic is answered that Mary was necessary for Jesus to have an earthly mother to raise Him from birth and to give Him that human lineage that God had established through Abraham, and from David's line, from the tribe of Judah.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hail Mary full of grace.

 

[Josiah]

And opf course this title doesnt confuse people and lead to them prayingh to her, not related at all

Bill -


AGAIN, Bill - no one here is saying that the title CANNOT be misunderstood or misapplied, after all Bill, ANYTHING can be misunderstood and/or misapplied by ANYONE. You know that, I know that, we all know that. NO ONE is saying this title is impossible to be misunderstood or misapplied. In fact, I've OFTEN stated elsewhere that it most certain can be - and often is among modern American and Australian "Evangelicals." Bill, what several of us are responding to is the claim that these two affirmations are "wrong, false and blasphemy." THAT's the singular issue several of us are addressing, the persistent claim that the two things affirmed in the title are specifically, "wrong, false and blasphemy." This title used by ALL Christians from the days of the early church until probably the mid 20th Century.... this title that comes from an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that Protestants almost universally accept.... this title that affirms two things that come verbatim, specifically from the Bible itself..... we're defending that these things are NOT "false, wrong and blasphemy." THAT is the issue.


AGAIN, Bill, NO ONE here has EVER held to a position or posted that the title is INCAPABLE of being misunderstood or misapplied. I can't think of any title or term that is incapable of such - so that position would be silly. The accusation made - for pages and pages now - is that the two things affirmed here are "false, wrong and blasphemy." NOT that the title is misunderstood and/or misapplied by a few modern "Evangelical" Americans and Australians. NO ONE has challenged the later, NO ONE is this thread has EVER even remotely hinted that this title is unique among all in human languages that is EXEMPT from any possibility of misunderstanding.


AGAIN, Bill, you've repeatedly claimed that affirming these two biblical truths leads to praying TO Mary; you've indicated some cause/effect relationship. Not only is that entirely irrelevant as to whether these two affirmations are "wrong, false, blasphemy" BUT you've ignored all requests to document your claim. Repeatedly. Bill, as you know, Lutherans use this title. There are some 70 million Lutherans in the world now. Document that because they affirm these two things ERGO they pray TO Mary (the cause/effect claim you make verified). And as you know, Anglicans also affirm these two things by using the title. There are some 90 million Anglicans in the word now. Document that because they affirm these two things, ERGO they all pray TO Mary (the cause/effect relationship verified). What is the evidence for your claim that if we affirm these two biblical truths, ERGO we must pray TO Mary.



Bill, Do you follow?

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.



.

Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Full O Beans]

This title used by ALL Christians from the days of the early church until probably the mid 20th Century.... this title that comes from an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that Protestants almost universally accept....

Most definitely the appellation given to Mary in question in this thread was not from the beginning, and definitely not all Christians submitted to it.

"In the 4th century, when Constantine the Great appointed himself Pontifex Maximus – supreme head – of the Christian Church, pagans and their pagan beliefs began infiltrating Christendom. Among the most influential of the new “converts” were those from the Mediterranean and Middle East areas where worship of the “Great Mother Goddess” and the “Divine Virgin” had existed since Babylon. According to Britannica, these groups:

“….found within the Christian Church a new possibility of expression in the worship of Mary as the virgin mother of God, in whom was achieved the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature.” (Britannica, Christianity: The doctrine of the Virgin Mary and holy Wisdom.)

By the end of the 4th century, Mary the mother of Jesus, known prior to the advent of Constantine as the Christ-bearer, (Greek Christotokos,) was being referred to as the God-bearer, (theotokos.) Thus was born the doctrine of Mary, mother of God, a title foreign to Scripture where she is called only the mother of Jesus. At first, this matter drew little attention, but in AD 428, Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, raised objections to the theotokos appellation, and thereby originated a controversy that continues to exist here in the 21st century."

(Excerpted from http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/marymother.php)

 

[psalms 91]

Most definitely the appellation given to Mary in question in this thread was not from the beginning, and definitely not all Christians submitted to it.

"In the 4th century, when Constantine the Great appointed himself Pontifex Maximus – supreme head – of the Christian Church, pagans and their pagan beliefs began infiltrating Christendom. Among the most influential of the new “converts” were those from the Mediterranean and Middle East areas where worship of the “Great Mother Goddess” and the “Divine Virgin” had existed since Babylon. According to Britannica, these groups:

“….found within the Christian Church a new possibility of expression in the worship of Mary as the virgin mother of God, in whom was achieved the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature.” (Britannica, Christianity: The doctrine of the Virgin Mary and holy Wisdom.)

By the end of the 4th century, Mary the mother of Jesus, known prior to the advent of Constantine as the Christ-bearer, (Greek Christotokos,) was being referred to as the God-bearer, (theotokos.) Thus was born the doctrine of Mary, mother of God, a title foreign to Scripture where she is called only the mother of Jesus. At first, this matter drew little attention, but in AD 428, Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, raised objections to the theotokos appellation, and thereby originated a controversy that continues to exist here in the 21st century."

Sounds right to me

 

[Josiah]

By the end of the 4th century, Mary the mother of Jesus, known prior to the advent of Constantine as the Christ-bearer, (Greek Christotokos,) was being referred to as the God-bearer, (theotokos.)

At first, this matter drew little attention, but in AD 428, Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, raised objections to the theotokos appellation, and thereby originated a controversy that continues to exist here in the 21st century.

Sounds right to me

Bill -


Please read post 425.


Bill, NOTHING you quoted or stated here indicates that Scripture is "false, wrong and blaspheming" when it declares that Mary is Jesus' mother and that Jesus may be called God.

Bill, NOTHING here indicates that early Christians did not believe that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called "GOD." Indeed, it implies that they did.... indeed, they even used the title and terms the great majority of Christians still do: Mary the Theotokos (Greek for GOD bearer) and Mary the Matre Dei (Latin for Mother of God).


The reference to the HERETIC and allusion to the universally condemned HERESY of Nestorianism in your post is.... disturbing. See http://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius Read this.... note the information about the heretic you referenced. Read about the heresy a couple of people in this thread are promoting. Note how this heretic was universally condemned.... notice that the title had existed long before this condemned heretic questioned it and thus Scripture. Friend, I don't recommend you going to universally condemned heresy (including by Protestants) for support. Bill, think twice about aligning yourself with heresy and heretics - saying it "sounds good." Please.



Again, please read post 425. Consider it. Thank you.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Full O Beans]

The point is that the idea of calling Mary "The Mother of God" was NOT from the beginning but just after the RCC was begun. It started as a doctrine around the year 431 AD, originating at the council at Ephesus.

So, it is a Catholic construct.

 

[psalms 91]

Bill -


Please read post 425.


Bill, NOTHING you quoted or stated here indicates that Scripture is "false, wrong and blaspheming" when it declares that Mary is Jesus' mother and that Jesus may be called God.

Bill, NOTHING here indicates that early Christians did not believe that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called "GOD." Indeed, it implies that they did.... indeed, they even used the title and terms the great majority of Christians still do: Mary the Theotokos (Greek for GOD bearer) and Mary the Matre Dei (Latin for Mother of God).


The reference to the HERETIC and allusion to the universally condemned HERESY of Nestorianism in your post is.... disturbing. See http://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius Read this.... note the information about the heretic you referenced. Read about the heresy a couple of people in this thread are promoting. Note how this heretic was universally condemned.... notice that the title had existed long before this condemned heretic questioned it and thus Scripture. Friend, I don't recommend you going to universally condemned heresy (including by Protestants) for support. Bill, think twice about aligning yourself with heresy and heretics - saying it "sounds good." Please.



Again, please read post 425. Consider it. Thank you.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

What is disturbing is this dogged hanging on to a title that is not in the bible and does cause confusion and division, the RCC in hanging on to this shows exqactly where it points people to worship but that is not surprising considering some other practices that fly in the face of scripture and then tries to cloud things with well placed words

 

[psalms 91]

Bill -


Please read post 425.


Bill, NOTHING you quoted or stated here indicates that Scripture is "false, wrong and blaspheming" when it declares that Mary is Jesus' mother and that Jesus may be called God.

Bill, NOTHING here indicates that early Christians did not believe that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called "GOD." Indeed, it implies that they did.... indeed, they even used the title and terms the great majority of Christians still do: Mary the Theotokos (Greek for GOD bearer) and Mary the Matre Dei (Latin for Mother of God).


The reference to the HERETIC and allusion to the universally condemned HERESY of Nestorianism in your post is.... disturbing. See http://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius Read this.... note the information about the heretic you referenced. Read about the heresy a couple of people in this thread are promoting. Note how this heretic was universally condemned.... notice that the title had existed long before this condemned heretic questioned it and thus Scripture. Friend, I don't recommend you going to universally condemned heresy (including by Protestants) for support. Bill, think twice about aligning yourself with heresy and heretics - saying it "sounds good." Please.



Again, please read post 425. Consider it. Thank you.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

I didnt post this by the way

 

[Josiah]

Bill -


Please read post 425.


Bill, NOTHING you quoted or stated here indicates that Scripture is "false, wrong and blaspheming" when it declares that Mary is Jesus' mother and that Jesus may be called God.

Bill, NOTHING here indicates that early Christians did not believe that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called "GOD." Indeed, it implies that they did.... indeed, they even used the title and terms the great majority of Christians still do: Mary the Theotokos (Greek for GOD bearer) and Mary the Matre Dei (Latin for Mother of God).


The reference to the HERETIC and allusion to the universally condemned HERESY of Nestorianism in your post is.... disturbing. See http://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius Read this.... note the information about the heretic you referenced. Read about the heresy a couple of people in this thread are promoting. Note how this heretic was universally condemned.... notice that the title had existed long before this condemned heretic questioned it and thus Scripture. Friend, I don't recommend you going to universally condemned heresy (including by Protestants) for support. Bill, think twice about aligning yourself with heresy and heretics - saying it "sounds good." Please.



Again, please read post 425. Consider it. Thank you.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

What is disturbing is this dogged hanging on to a title

IMO, what is disturbing is saying that a HERETIC "sounds good", quoting a HERETIC to support one's position.... Did you read the link provided for you? Did you read about the heresy here, about the heretic you referenced to support your point - what you said "sounds good" about? Did you read about the Nestorianism being suggested in this thread that you noted "sounds good?"

is not in the bible

The title "Bible" isn't found in the Bible, either. Thus you reject your own premise: that we are forbidden from using titles not found in the Bible...


LOTS of terms, titles, etc. are not found in the Bible. Trinity.... Sunday School..... Reverend..... Youth Pastor..... Youth group..... Bible..... none of these titles or words are found even once in the Bible. Do you therefore reject and condemn them? Are they thus "false, wrong and blasphemy?"

cause confusion

Please read post # 425.

NO ONE here - no one, not one - has disputed that this title is INCAPABLE of being misunderstood or misused.... friend, EVERY title is capable of that. I've posted REPEATEDLY to you that I accept it CAN be misunderstood - I've even said to you it IS often misunderstood by a few modern American and Australian "Evangelicals" in the past few decades. That is not the issue ANYONE here is disputing. Not me. Not anyone here. EVERYTHING can be misunderstood by ANYONE. No one here - no one - is disputing that.

As noted to you several times, the issue being disputed is the claim that the two things being affirmed are specifically "false, wrong and blasphemy." THAT'S the sole issue I'm and several others are discussing, THAT'S the discussion, THAT's the claim and the dispute: that these things are "false, wrong and blasphemy." You referencing a heretic and a heresy to support the claim that these two things are false, wrong and blasphemy is defending that claim... you saying that heresy "sounds good" is disturbing. And does not make the point that, like everything, like every term, like every title, is capable of being misunderstood.

the RCC

The teachings predates the RCC. The teachings are found in the Bible. See post # 425 where I quote the Bible verbatim, specifically stating both things. These and other Scriptures have been quoted to you, often. But you've always seemed to ignore and evade them.

The titles "Theotokos" and "Matre Dei" were not invented by the RCC. They both predate the RCC. And they are not exclusive to the RCC. The Oriental Orthodox use it to affirm these two biblical teachings. The Eastern Orthodox use it to affirm these two biblical teachings. The Anglican Church (some 90 million), the Lutheran Church (some 70 million) use it to affirm these two biblical truths. It is no more "RCC" than is the term "Trinity" or "Bible".

And your premise that if one affirms these two truths ERGO they pray TO Mary (this cause/effect point of yours) is still entirely unsupported. I affirm both of these truths (and thus the title), prove please that ERGO I pray TO Mary.



See post 425.



- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

IMO, what is disturbing is saying that a HERETIC "sounds good", quoting a HERETIC to support one's position.... Did you read the link provided for you? Did you read about the heresy here, about the heretic you referenced to support your point - what you said "sounds good" about? Did you read about the Nestorianism being suggested in this thread that you noted "sounds good?"






The title "Bible" isn't found in the Bible, either. Thus you reject your own premise: that we are forbidden from using titles not found in the Bible...


LOTS of terms, titles, etc. are not found in the Bible. Trinity.... Sunday School..... Reverend..... Youth Pastor..... Youth group..... Bible..... none of these titles or words are found even once in the Bible. Do you therefore reject and condemn them? Are they thus "false, wrong and blasphemy?"






Please read post # 425.

NO ONE here - no one, not one - has disputed that this title is INCAPABLE of being misunderstood or misused.... friend, EVERY title is capable of that. I've posted REPEATEDLY to you that I accept it CAN be misunderstood - I've even said to you it IS often misunderstood by a few modern American and Australian "Evangelicals" in the past few decades. That is not the issue ANYONE here is disputing. Not me. Not anyone here. EVERYTHING can be misunderstood by ANYONE. As noted to you several times, the issue being disputed is the claim that the two things being affirmed are specifically "false, wrong and blasphemy." THAT'S the sole issue I'm and several others are discussing, THAT'S the discussion, THAT's the claim and the dispute: that these things are "false, wrong and blasphemy." You referencing a heretic and a heresy to support the claim that these two things are false, wrong and blasphemy is defending that claim... you saying that heresy "sounds good" is disturbing. And does not make the point that, like everything, like every term, like every title, is capable of being misunderstood.





The teachings predates the RCC. The teachings are found in the Bible. See post # 425 where I quote the Bible verbatim, specifically stating both things. These and other Scriptures have been quoted to you, often. But you've always seemed to ignore and evade them.

The titles "Theotokos" and "Matre Dei" were not invented by the RCC. They both predate the RCC. And they are not exclusive to the RCC. The Oriental Orthodox use it to affirm these two biblical teachings. The Eastern Orthodox use it to affirm these two biblical teachings. The Anglican Church (some 90 million), the Lutheran Church (some 70 million) use it to affirm these two biblical truths. It is no more "RCC" than is the term "Trinity" or "Bible".

And your premise that if one affirms these two truths ERGO they pray TO Mary (this cause/effect point of yours) is still entirely unsupported. I affirm both of these truths (and thus the title), prove please that ERGO I pray TO Mary.



See post 425.



- Josiah

I to can take scripture and make it say something but it would be just as wrong, I am not trying to debate it any more it has been ad nausiem and like many other threads that RCC point of view has to the last word thinking it will make anything right, have fun, and no I am not surrendering or giving up because I am wrong but siimply because like others you weary me with this constant repitition and refusal to admit that praying to Mary is wrong, elevating her to anything other than a blessed woman is wrong, to claim that she is the mother of God, I am sure that God loves that one He who is without beginning or end

 

[Josiah]

I to can take scripture and make it say something but it would be just as wrong

Scripture is not wrong. See post 425. I (and several others ) have quoted VERBATIM (without ANY interpretation) Scripture itself stating the two things in this affirmation. If you declare these "wrong, false, blasphemous" then..... IMO..... you are declaring Scripture so.

READ the Scriptures in 425.

RCC point of view

This is not an RCC matter. The truths PREDATE the RCC. The title is NOT exclusive to the RCC. Your trying to twist it into some "anti-Catholic" thing is absurd: it's NOT a unique Catholic teaching. It comes from the Bible. See post # 425. It was affirmed by an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (not RCC) which PROTESTANTS also tend to accept. It's no more "Catholic" than the title "Trinity."

Oriental Orthodox affirm these two Biblical truths - and thus the title.
Eastern Orthodox affirm these two Biblical truths - and thus the title.
Anglicans affirm these two Biblical truths - and thus the title.
Lutherans affirm these two Biblcal truths - and thus the title.
Orthodox and Anglicans and Lutherans are NOT the RCC.

Yes, Nestorians and Arians rejected it but Bill - those are HERESIES! Those were HERETICS you are pointing to, saying they "sound good."

refusal to admit that praying to Mary is wrong

Bill, you are confusing threads. I NEVER stated that praying to Mary is good.

YOU indicated that there is some cause/effect between believing the Bible on these two points (rather than HERETICS and HERESIES!) and thus praying TO Mary. But here's the thing: you won't give any evidence for that. I'm Lutheran..... I believe that Mary bore Jesus (because the Bible says so) and that Jesus may be called God (because the Bible says so). NOW, BILL, prove that ERGO I pray TO Mary. Don't make that accusation to me and then RUN away from it.




.

 

[Full O Beans]

The teaching does NOT predate the RCC, it came along in 415 AD, about 100 years after the RCC began.

Every time Mary is referred to as "The Mother of God", it is a false, misleading, misuse. It blasphemes God and misrepresents His word. It leads people into the idea that Mary is more than she is---which is its purpose in the first place.

Now, that is the heresy.


.

 

[psalms 91]

Scripture is not wrong. See post 425. I (and several others ) have quoted VERBATIM (without ANY interpretation) Scripture itself stating the two things in this affirmation. If you declare these "wrong, false, blasphemous" then..... IMO..... you are declaring Scripture so.

READ the Scriptures in 425.





This is not an RCC matter. The truths PREDATE the RCC. The title is NOT exclusive to the RCC. Your trying to twist it into some "anti-Catholic" thing is absurd: it's NOT a unique Catholic teaching. It comes from the Bible. See post # 425. It was affirmed by an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (not RCC) which PROTESTANTS also tend to accept. It's no more "Catholic" than the title "Trinity."

Oriental Orthodox affirm these two Biblical truths - and thus the title.
Eastern Orthodox affirm these two Biblical truths - and thus the title.
Anglicans affirm these two Biblical truths - and thus the title.
Lutherans affirm these two Biblcal truths - and thus the title.
Orthodox and Anglicans and Lutherans are NOT the RCC.

Yes, Nestorians and Arians rejected it but Bill - those are HERESIES! Those were HERETICS you are pointing to, saying they "sound good."







Bill, you are confusing threads. I NEVER stated that praying to Mary is good.

YOU indicated that there is some cause/effect between believing the Bible on these two points (rather than HERETICS and HERESIES!) and thus praying TO Mary. But here's the thing: you won't give any evidence for that. I'm Lutheran..... I believe that Mary bore Jesus (because the Bible says so) and that Jesus may be called God (because the Bible says so). NOW, BILL, prove that ERGO I pray TO Mary. Don't make that accusation to me and then RUN away from it.




.

The other churchs that accept this are so close to RCC as to be indistingishable to the casual observer. And you think thta this title is ok because Jesus was God, even though He is called the son of man for a reason. He laid aside His deity and defeated satan as a man could otherwise He showed us nothing in how He defeated satan and satan has a legitimate complaint if He was God when He defeated him. Now as to praying to Mary do you not think that the confusion caused by this title does not lead to that? Most people in church do not split hairs and study long and hard to distinguish things that are close and lets face it if Mary mother of God you would think that she could intercede even though my bible tells me that the saints sleep until the return of Christ, interesting

 

[Josiah]

The other churchs that accept this are so close to RCC as to be indistingishable to the casual observer.

Then you admit the error: These are NOT exclusive RCC teachings: some 630 MILLION non-Catholics also use the title. And all but Arians and Nestorians (like the heretic you referenced for support) accept the two teachings of the Bible as true.

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 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 - Jesus." Note: WHO is called 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.



.

you think thta this title is ok because Jesus was God

I don't "think" Jesus may be correctly called "GOD", Scripture states it and does it.

Yes, two HERESIES - universally condemned by PROTESTANTS - deny it. Arianism and Nestorianism (including the heretic you referenced to support your position), they deny it. The First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils affirm that Jesus may be called God (and do so) - affirming Scripture. It's two heresies - universally condemned but you say "sound good" that deny it.

He laid aside His deity

... a heresy called Arianism. Another called Nestorianism. You might want to look those up; every Protestant denomination on the planet known to me condemns them both.

You're thinking of a verse that you are choosing to not quote, because the verse does NOT say He gave up His divinity for a spell.... it says He laid aside the USE of it. Apples and oranges. I'm not using my car at this moment.... does that mean I gave it up, no longer have it, that it's blasphemy to say that at this moment I'm a car owner?

Now as to praying to Mary

You have your threads confused. NO ONE here has defending praying TO Mary. Not me. Not anyone.

do you not think that the confusion caused by this title does not lead to that?

That's YOUR accusation..... it's up to YOU to substantiate it rather than two attempts now to run from it. YOU are the one suggesting a cause/effect relationship here, that if one believes these two things that the Bible says (rather than HERESIES you refernce as "sounds good"), YOU claim that makes them "pray TO Mary." This is YOUR premise, YOUR accusation. Now prove it. Start with me. I'm Lutheran. I accept the Bible (RATHER than unbiblical, universally condemned heresies you said "sound good"), so I'm okay with this title that affirms the Scriptures quoted above. Now, prove I ERGO pray TO Mary. In fact, prove that accusation with ALL the 630- million non-Catholics that agree here with Scripture (and disagree with the heretic you referenced for support) that use this title ERGO pray TO Mary. If your accusation and premise is true - this cause/effect thing you stress - prove that since we believe Scripture (rather than Arianism and Nestorianism), since we thus use the title, ERGO we all pray TO Mary. Or maybe your premise, your accusation (however irrelevant to the issue of whether these teaching are "false, wrong and blasphemy") is simply not true, is simply false?




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hail Mary full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

 

[Full O Beans]

Hail Mary full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

She can't HEAR you!

 

[psalms 91]

Then you admit the error: These are NOT exclusive RCC teachings: some 630 MILLION non-Catholics also use the title. And all but Arians and Nestorians (like the heretic you referenced for support) accept the two teachings of the Bible as true.







I don't "think" Jesus may be correctly called "GOD", Scripture states it and does it.

Yes, two HERESIES - universally condemned by PROTESTANTS - deny it. Arianism and Nestorianism (including the heretic you referenced to support your position), they deny it. The First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils affirm that Jesus may be called God (and do so) - affirming Scripture. It's two heresies - universally condemned but you say "sound good" that deny it.





... a heresy called Arianism. Another called Nestorianism. You might want to look those up; every Protestant denomination on the planet known to me condemns them both.

You're thinking of a verse that you are choosing to not quote, because the verse does NOT say He gave up His divinity for a spell.... it says He laid aside the USE of it. Apples and oranges. I'm not using my car at this moment.... does that mean I gave it up, no longer have it, that it's blasphemy to say that at this moment I'm a car owner?






You have your threads confused. NO ONE here has defending praying TO Mary. Not me. Not anyone.






That's YOUR accusation..... it's up to YOU to substantiate it rather than two attempts now to run from it. YOU are the one suggesting a cause/effect relationship here, that if one believes these two things that the Bible says (rather than HERESIES you refernce as "sounds good"), YOU claim that makes them "pray TO Mary." This is YOUR premise, YOUR accusation. Now prove it. Start with me. I'm Lutheran. I accept the Bible (RATHER than unbiblical, universally condemned heresies you said "sound good"), so I'm okay with this title that affirms the Scriptures quoted above. Now, prove I ERGO pray TO Mary. In fact, prove that accusation with ALL the 630- million non-Catholics that agree here with Scripture (and disagree with the heretic you referenced for support) that use this title ERGO pray TO Mary. If your accusation and premise is true - this cause/effect thing you stress - prove that since we believe Scripture (rather than Arianism and Nestorianism), since we thus use the title, ERGO we all pray TO Mary. Or maybe your premise, your accusation (however irrelevant to the issue of whether these teaching are "false, wrong and blasphemy") is simply not true, is simply false?




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

Sigh as I said it has been done ad nausium and it is the same stuff repeated, hopefuully there is enough here to keep this heresay out of other peoples faith. Enjoy the thread