Why was Mary necessary?

[psalms 91]

Ok noone prays to Mary and everything is just fine, I have had it with this thread and with all the going around the bush, enjoy the thread and I still want to know are going to keep going the way of Catholic doctrine and defending that which I know to be wrongh? If this is going to be a Catholic board just tell me and I will move on. I have no desire to debate all these things that I already know are wrong. enjoy

 

[Josiah]

Ok noone prays to Mary

I don't understand. Repeatedly (at least 5 times) you have stated that these things in the Bible and the title that affirms them are wrong, false BECAUSE those that embrace them (rather than two heresies) THEREFORE pray TO Mary. There's a cause/effect relationship, the whole premise, your argument has been BECAUSE of this CAUSE/EFFECT thing, BECAUSE believing these things rather than Arianism and Nestorianism, THEREFORE - for that reason - they all pray TO Mary, THATS why it's wrong to affirm these two biblical teachings. That's been your often repeated premise, your argument.

I just make it as easy as I could for you to show your premise, your argument is correct. But you constantly are sidestepping your claim, and persistently refusing to provide ANY support for it. I don't understand. Take just Lamm and I. You know us both. We've both posted in this thread. Neither of us are Catholics. Both of us affirm the two biblical teachings and thus regard the title as valid. Right? So, rather than dealing with almost 2 billion people, how about just us TWO? Just show that we two pray TO Mary and the CAUSE of this is specifically because we hold to these two biblical teachings (rather than the two heresies) and thus regard the title as valid. That IS your premise, your argument. And I don't believe you want to sidestep it.

Or maybe you hold it's wrong but the reason you've given (this CAUSE/EFFECT thing to praying TO Mary) is one you now abandon. Okay. Fine. Then why are these two teachings specifically WRONG where as Arianism and Nestorianism are RIGHT? If you've abandoned your earlier (oft stated) reason, what is your new reason?

And no.... this has nothing to do with Catholicism (any more than the Trinity has to do with Catholicism). Catholics are FAR from the only ones who affirm these biblical things.... CAtholics didn't first state them.... Catholics aren't the only ones who affirm the title as valid (and the hereies as heresies), Yes, Catholics often do embrace these two truths, but THAT doesn't make it WRONG (unless you are insisting the Trinity is wrong BECAUSE Catholics hold that it is right). Come on, Bill. This is a DISCUSSION forum; if you are going to insist nearly 2 billion Christians are WRONG and that two heresies are right - and you post that over and over - at least show us WHY. Please don't sidestep it or do the "hit and run" thing - you are FAR better than that, my friend!!!! I KNOW that!



?????



- Josiah




.

 

[Alithis]

Your argument against these Scriptural truths and thus the validity of the title is that those who uphold these truths (rather than the heretic you held up) ergo, therefore, in a cause/effect manner, pray TO Mary. Okay. Substantiate that.

Now, if you like to eliminate Catholcis, that's fine. There are some 630,000,000 NON-Catholics, some 630,000,000 who are NOT Catholics, who also affirm those two biblical truths (rather than the two heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism) and thus hold the title valid, prove that 1) all of them pray TO Mary and 2) that the cause of this is that they hold to these two biblical truths (rather than the two heresies). Prove both.

Again, we've made it so easy for you (since it would be hard for you to prove both of those for nearly 2 billion people - Catholics included). How about just 2? Lamm and I. NEITHER of us are Catholics. BOTH of us hold to these two biblical truths and reject the two heresies. We both affirm the title is valid. So (we've made it so easy for you cuz we like you), just prove that 1) both of us pray TO Mary and 2) the CAUSE of this is specifically that we embrace those two biblcal truths rather than Arianism and Nestorianism. Easy. Will you do it? Or will you keep sidestepping your argument? Otherwise, you have provided NOTHING to show your premise is true, your argument holds any water AT ALL. How can we possibly make it easier for you to show your argument to be true? Bill, I'm trying to be nice here, to make it as easy as possible for you.




.

oh good grief
he hasn't given any argument againt scriptural truth. nor has any one .only againt your traditions you impose over the top of direct unambiguous scripture in the absence of any direct scripture to base it on.

 

[Josiah]

he hasn't given any argument

His argument is that the positions (Mary bore Jesus, this Jesus may be called "God") are wrong BECAUSE those that hold them THEREFORE (in a cause/effect relationship) pray TO Mary. Bill is a good poster. I desired for him to show evidence of his position and tried to make it easy for him. I don't know if Bill has decided to drop that position (after some 5 times) - which is fine - or if he now has some other reason. But if the later is so, I'D like to see it presented.

Sorry this bothers you so, that it causes you grief.

the absence of any scripture to base it on.

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, this one who exited the womb of Mary) is..... what? What title was used for Jesus?

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).



Some view this as wrong, several of us are holding them as correct.




.

 

[Alithis]

yeah like i said -only againt your traditions you impose over the top of direct unambiguous scripture in the absence of any direct scripture to base it on.

 

[Josiah]

yeah like i said -only againt your traditions you impose over the top of direct unambiguous scripture in the absence of any direct scripture to base it on.

I agree. Nothing has been shown to contradict Matthew 1:18 to show that Mary did NOT birth JESUS. And nothing has been shown to prove John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 are blasphemous and errant since they refer to this JESUS specifically as "GOD."




- Josiah



.

 

[Full O Beans]

I agree. Nothing has been shown to contradict Matthew 1:18 to show that Mary did NOT birth JESUS. And nothing has been shown to prove John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 are blasphemous and errant since they refer to this JESUS specifically as "GOD."

- Josiah

Correct. The error is calling Mary "The Mother of God", as a religious affect. It really isn't about her, but this add-on (431 AD) appellation makes it about her.


.

 

[psalms 91]

Correct. The error is calling Mary "The Mother of God", as a religious affect. It really isn't about her, but this add-on (431 AD) appellation makes it about her.


.

Yup but of course it is obscured by the issue of the titles of jesus and is misdirected from this, the real issue

 

[Josiah]

Yup but of course it is obscured by the issue of the titles of jesus and is misdirected from this, the real issue

Some have a problem with the title SCRIPTURE gives to Jesus ("GOD"), and thus condemn Titus 2:13 and John 20:28, siding instead with two heresies (Arianism and Nestorianism).

And some disagree with Matthew 1:18 that states that Mary is the mother of this one whom Scripture specifically calls "GOD"




.

 

[Full O Beans]

Some have a problem with the title SCRIPTURE gives to Jesus ("GOD"), and thus condemn Titus 2:13 and John 20:28, siding instead with two heresies (Arianism and Nestorianism).

And some disagree with Matthew 1:18 that states that Mary is the mother of this one whom Scripture specifically calls "GOD"

.

I don't know ONE SINGLE Christian who doesn't KNOW that Jesus is God. You can't hang your hat on that and still declare that Mary is the Mother of God, when we all know that when we use the word, "God", we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary was the Mother of the Son, Jesus. It is best to be accurate so that people will not be led astray to begin to elevate a woman, used by God for one purpose, beyond her purpose. That is called godly wisdom.

 

[psalms 91]

Some have a problem with the title SCRIPTURE gives to Jesus ("GOD"), and thus condemn Titus 2:13 and John 20:28, siding instead with two heresies (Arianism and Nestorianism).

And some disagree with Matthew 1:18 that states that Mary is the mother of this one whom Scripture specifically calls "GOD"




.

I dont think we disagree with the scripture so much as how misleading the title is to others. I am sure that you know God has no mother and no beginning or end, now if you choose to say that mary is the Mother of the fleshly incarnation then that is much more accurate

 

[Josiah]

.

Jesus is God.

You've FINALLY changed your mind and accept that Jesus IS GOD and may be called that. GREAT!!! How many pages did that take! I rejoice in your abandonment of Arianian and Nestorianism (and I hope you will now also renounce that heretic you reference by name to support you).

I rejoice in your complete "180" and that you have how abandon Arianism and Nestorianism, and now embrace what Scripture states. I don't care that it took 49 pages to accomplish that, I just rejoice in your coming into Biblical Christianity!


:arms:

Mary was the Mother of Jesus.

... Jesus IS GOD


.

Yes, that's what we've been saying for 49 pages. You've been saying that's "wrong, false, blasphemy" NOW, you agree with us. NOW you agree with Matthew 1:18, Titus 2:13, John 20:28. I rejoice in your "180" and your sudden abandonment of Arianism and Nestorianism.


:arms:

"God", we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You said JESUS IS GOD. You said all Christians must know this.


You just stated that Jesus is God. You said that all Christians must beleive that (although you and a couple of others have been denying that for how many pages now? Even referencing heretics and heresies as references). No, Jesus is not the TRINITY (friend, that too is heresy) But yes, each Person of the Trinity is (repeated and specifically) called "GOD" in Scripture and in theology. We've documented that for you. NOT "Trinity" but "GOD." Because as all Christians know, the term "GOD' does not always mean the whole of the Trinity. Which is why you correctly stated, so boldly, "JESUS IS GOD."

Which is why we all told you - over and over and over and over, from the beginning - the title is NOT "Mary - Source of the Trinity" THAT'S silly, heretical, unbiblical - and NOT used or believed or proclaimed by a single soul on the planet Earth in nearly 2000 years. Not ANYONE. Not ANYTIME. Shocking you even came up with such a crazy thought. We've NEVER discussed that absurd non-existent title, we cannot discuss that title because it doesn't exist and never has.


The title is the two things you've FINALLY (after 49 pages!!!) have declared are NOT actually "false, wrong and blasphemy" as you've been insisting for 49 pages now, but.... well.... it's TRUE and "All Christians must know THIS."




:arms: :arms: :arms: :arms: :arms:







.

 

[Alithis]

Correct. The error is calling Mary "The Mother of God", as a religious affect. It really isn't about her, but this add-on (431 AD) appellation makes it about her.


.

Yup but of course it is obscured by the issue of the titles of jesus and is misdirected from this, the real issue

yup .. and paul has no problem making the distinction between the manifestation of god and the flesh man he became .. for he says there is ONE mediator between man and god .. the MAN Christ jesus .. he does not say the GOD christ JESUS . and yet we fully know he also fully recognises that in christ the fullness of the godhead dwelt ..

So God who is eternal has no mother (wel of course not how can he who has no beginning or end have a point of origin )..his flesh conceived by God has a beginning and it is this flesh man that mary is the mother of . not the eternal God .

since neither the scripture nor God anywhere declare her to be the mother of God we must look into the origin of the terminology and we find it has no origin with GOD .
becaseu it is pagan in origin it is speaking some one other then the mary of the scriptures.

 

[Full O Beans]

.








You've FINALLY changed your mind and accept that Jesus IS GOD and may be called that. GREAT!!! How many pages did that take! I rejoice in your abandonment of Arianian and Nestorianism (and I hope you will now also renounce that heretic you reference by name to support you).

I rejoice in your complete "180" and that you have how abandon Arianism and Nestorianism, and now embrace what Scripture states. I don't care that it took 49 pages to accomplish that, I just rejoice in your coming into Biblical Christianity!


:arms:







Yes, that's what we've been saying for 49 pages. You've been saying that's "wrong, false, blasphemy" NOW, you agree with us. NOW you agree with Matthew 1:18, Titus 2:13, John 20:28. I rejoice in your "180" and your sudden abandonment of Arianism and Nestorianism.


:arms:







You said JESUS IS GOD. You said all Christians must know this.


You just stated that Jesus is God. You said that all Christians must beleive that (although you and a couple of others have been denying that for how many pages now? Even referencing heretics and heresies as references). No, Jesus is not the TRINITY (friend, that too is heresy) But yes, each Person of the Trinity is (repeated and specifically) called "GOD" in Scripture and in theology. We've documented that for you. NOT "Trinity" but "GOD." Because as all Christians know, the term "GOD' does not always mean the whole of the Trinity. Which is why you correctly stated, so boldly, "JESUS IS GOD."

Which is why we all told you - over and over and over and over, from the beginning - the title is NOT "Mary - Source of the Trinity" THAT'S silly, heretical, unbiblical - and NOT used or believed or proclaimed by a single soul on the planet Earth in nearly 2000 years. Not ANYONE. Not ANYTIME. Shocking you even came up with such a crazy thought. We've NEVER discussed that absurd non-existent title, we cannot discuss that title because it doesn't exist and never has.


The title is the two things you've FINALLY (after 49 pages!!!) have declared are NOT actually "false, wrong and blasphemy" as you've been insisting for 49 pages now, but.... well.... it's TRUE and "All Christians must know THIS."




:arms: :arms: :arms: :arms: :arms:

All I see of your reply is more of the same: human rationalization for taking on a deception.

 

[Alithis]

some of the replies are border line ...................

 

[George]

I swear lol, I can't even believe this thread.

 

[Alithis]

its yours to close george ..


God never gave mary the title "mother of God " - man did , for reasons of devious agenda .

 

[Lamb]

Staff isn't closing this thread yet, but it would be better if members could go back to making posts with substance instead of snipes, jabs, mockery.

 

[Josiah]

I swear lol, I can't even believe this thread.

1. USUALLY, the "problem" a few modern American and Australian "Evangelicals" have is NOT that the two things this title affirms are "false, wrong and blasphemy" but RATHER that it's easy to misunderstand and the TRUTHS of it could be better conveyed. THAT I 'get.' THAT I don't even challenge.


2. What is AMAZING about this long, long thread is that this is the first time ever that I've witnessed these modern American 'Evangelicals" declaring, condemning the two points as "wrong, false and blasphemous." Only one post here questions if Mary bore Jesus, the rest are denying the divinity of this Jesus and the correctness of the Bible specifically calling, labeling JESUS (the one Mary bore) as specifically "GOD." The noting Arianism and Nestorianism and specifically mentioning by name at least one horrible heretic to boast their argument is also disturbing. Very disturbing. Many would question the theology of modern American "Evangelicalism" but embracing Arianism and Nestorianism is NOT something I've seen before.


3. And it's just weird. One of the main protestors of these two truths, finally (after 49 PAGES of posts !!!!!) actually stated BOTH points as "true" and something "all Christians must know." Destroying that posters' entire argument for 49 PAGES. I rejoiced in this, only to then be informed this poster was taking it all back and returning to his/her previous position of Arianism and Nestorianism, protesting the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils and thus this title embracing these two truths. Amazing. Stunning.


Sometimes, some modern American "Evangelicals" amaze me. Shock me. Disturb me. "Evangelicalism" is often seen as just Christianity Light - lots of emotion, not much theology. But sometimes aspects of what theology there is appears to be ancient, ecumenically condemned heresy resurrected.




Thank you for this thread. Although it's been perhaps the most disturbing thread I've ever participated in.


Pax


- Josiah


.

 

[psalms 91]

I believe I stated exactly that