Why was Mary necessary?

[Alithis]

Lots of emotion ,,no direct unambigous scriptures... I think is also clear.
God did not give mary the title "mother of God"

Man did.. And he did so with an agenda not of God.

Paul also stated both points as true and made clear distinction .but no ones condemning him for it.

 

[Josiah]

Lots of emotion ,,no direct unambigous scriptures... I think is also clear.
God did not give mary the title "mother of God"

God did not give Himself the title of "Trinity" either.

But yes, I know, this is one of MANY, MANY arguments: we can't use titles unless they are explicitly used in the Bible. Of course, the title "Bible" is never found in the Bible either. Or "Youth Pastor" or "Reverend" or "Praise Band" or "Sunday School" or "Youth Group" or "Crusade" or "Altar Call" or "Worship Center" or "Evangelical" or a bunch of other titles a lot of modern American "Evangelicals" use. Now, IF you were fighting against terms like "Potluck" "Coffee time" "Youth Group" and so on, I'd see your point. But....

Paul also stated both points as true

... and yet the 50 PAGES of posts declaring these as "wrong, false and blasphemous." Pages and pages and pages of posts insisting saying Jesus may correctly be called "GOD" and that Mary bore this Jesus is "false, wrong, blasphemous, unbiblical, makes one religious" etc., etc., etc. The appeals to ancient heresies, the specific appeal to a horrible heretic as one who supports your pov.... 50 PAGES of posts condemning as "wrong, false, blasphemy" that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called GOD. Bitter accusations toward those who agree with Matthew 1:18, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, etc. 50 PAGES of it.




.

 

[Alithis]

Lots of emotion ,,no direct unambigous scriptures... I think is also clear.
God did not give mary the title "mother of God"

Man did.. And he did so with an agenda not of God.

Paul also stated both points as true and made clear distinction .but no ones condemning him for it.

God did not give himself the title "trinity " either .. nor do I . when the topic arises (as iv already stated ) i prefer to talk about it in terms of "the Godhead " because thats scriptural .

 

[Full O Beans]

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

It is said that the truth offends. It serves as a stumbling stone for those who adhere too tightly to tradition and man-made doctrine.

Romans 9:31-33
But the people of Israel, who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law, never succeeded. 32 Why not? Because they were trying to get right with God by keeping the law instead of by trusting in him. They stumbled over the great rock in their path.
God warned them of this in the Scriptures when he said,

“I am placing a stone in Jerusalem that makes people stumble,
a rock that makes them fall.
But anyone who trusts in him
will never be disgraced.”

 

[Josiah]

It is said that the truth offends. It serves as a stumbling stone for those who adhere too tightly to tradition and man-made doctrine.

Since it has been stressed by the proponents of the new tradition of Mr. Thomas Muenzer that if a Baptism Rule is not STATED in SCRIPTURE that it therefore is wrong, false and makes the rule-maker "religious" ... and since in 50 pages of posts, not one of them can find even one of their long, long, long list of Baptism Rules STATED in Scripture, it might be reasonable for all to take their own advise and regard their plethora of Baptism Rules as false, wrong.

Since it has been the universal tradition of all Christians from at least 69 AD at the very latest NOT to make Baptism Rules about age (and all the rest), to NOT mandate that it is hereby forbidden to permit the baptism of any under that age of X (the sole topic of this thread), this new tradition of a tiny minority of Christians dating from the mid Sixteenth Century perhaps should not be adhered to too tightly. Nothing has been shown to prove that every Christian on the planet for 1500 years was wrong - and this German layman suddently discovered a Baptism Rule that none had seen before (but none today can quote).

Yes, I think we have some adhering tightly to a late rare tradition of Mr. Thomas Muenzer (anti-paedobaptism) with NOTHING in Scripture to show why it must displace the much earlier, universal one dating to no later than 69 AD. And since it has been insisted we must reject any Baptism Rule not STATED in Scripture, and since Mr. Muenzer made this new Baptism Rule that has been proven to NOT be STATED in Scripture, we should take the advise of you guys and dismiss it, regarding it as false.

Romans 9:31-33
But the people of Israel, who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law, never succeeded. 32 Why not? Because they were trying to get right with God by keeping the law instead of by trusting in him. They stumbled over the great rock in their path.
God warned them of this in the Scriptures when he said,

“I am placing a stone in Jerusalem that makes people stumble,
a rock that makes them fall.
But anyone who trusts in him
will never be disgraced.”

1. Nothing about following Mr. Thomas Muenzer.

2. Sorry, but I dont read there, "Thou mayest not permit any to be baptized until such first attaineth unto the age of X." And I don't read there, "Thou mayest not permit unto Baptism any such that hath not public proclaimed unto all 'I believeth in Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour'." And I don't read there, "Thou mayest not permit unto Baptism any who hath not proven an awareness of X." Yeah, maybe Paul is implying to not just swallow a new Baptism tradition of one German layman in the 16th Century who claimed to find a verse neither he nor anyone else can seem to find creating some prohibition." But I don't think Paul is STATING that one receiving Baptism must submit unto a new Baptism Rule invented by Mr Thomas Muenzer that one must FIRST attaineth unto the age of X. It seems we disagree.




.

 

[Full O Beans]

This ongoing and tiresome theory of yours about some Muenzer feller is quite ridiculous, especially coming from a traditionalist.

God's word is my authority, and should be yours.



.

 

[Josiah]

Full O Beans,

You've already admitted that SCRIPTURE STATES that Mary bore Jesus AND that Jesus may correctly be called God. So, you've lost your point.

All you have left is that we may not use titles not found in the Bible - a point you made exactly that way - not caring that the title Bible isn't found in the Bible either. And IF you were equally protesting the titles "Reverand" "Praise Band" "Worship Center" "Sunday School" "Youth" and so on, you'd have a point. But you're okay with those titles so obviously you don't believe yourself. So why should we?

 

[Full O Beans]

Full O Beans,

You've already admitted that SCRIPTURE STATES that Mary bore Jesus AND that Jesus may correctly be called God. So, you've lost your point.

I've lost nothing. There is a point that goes missing here by a few, and that is that Mary is not ever referred to as the Mother of God in all of scripture, and rightly so, because God, that great Three In One has no mother.

All you have left is that we may not use titles not found in the Bible - a point you made exactly that way - not caring that the title Bible isn't found in the Bible either. And IF you were equally protesting the titles "Reverand" "Praise Band" "Worship Center" "Sunday School" "Youth" and so on, you'd have a point. But you're okay with those titles so obviously you don't believe yourself. So why should we?

"Bible" means "library". The library of books we call scripture is called the bible.

I don't go off half-cocked about titles, but "Mother of God" is particularly wayward.

 

[Alithis]

why do you want her tk be called something TheLord never called her?

 

[Josiah]

why do you want her tk be called something TheLord never called her?

Doesn't matter. You're back to your "can't use a term not found in the Bible - although Bible isn't found in the Bible either" point. I don't agree. You don't either since you've used the title "BIBLE" which Jesus never used either. And modern American "Evangelicals" also use titles like "Trinity" "Reverend" "Youth" "Sunday School" "Bible Study" "Worship Center" and a bunch of other titles NEVER found in the Bible and NEVER once used by Jesus. Oh, and "personal savior" is not found in the Bible, either. So since NO ONE - including you - accepts your premise or practices it, there's no reason for us to accept an argument and premise that you don't. No one does.

BTW, Jesus never called Himself "Jesus" either. And never would have referred to His mother by the title "Mary". His given name was Yashua and His mother's name was "Mariam." And yet, YOU use the titles......

You've already agreed that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called "GOD." So you've already agreed the two affirmations of the title are NOT wrong but are correct (indeed, that all Christians must affirm this). And you use titles never found in the Bible, titles Jesus never used so you don't believe we are limited to such. You've already boldly and clearly stated you've been wrong for 50 + pages.



- Josiah



.

 

[psalms 91]

Doesn't matter. You're back to your "can't use a term not found in the Bible - although Bible isn't found in the Bible either" point. I don't agree. You don't either since you've used the title "BIBLE" which Jesus never used either. And modern American "Evangelicals" also use titles like "Trinity" "Reverend" "Youth" "Sunday School" "Bible Study" "Worship Center" and a bunch of other titles NEVER found in the Bible and NEVER once used by Jesus. Oh, and "personal savior" is not found in the Bible, either. So since NO ONE - including you - accepts your premise or practices it, there's no reason for us to accept an argument and premise that you don't. No one does.

BTW, Jesus never called Himself "Jesus" either. And never would have referred to His mother by the title "Mary". His given name was Yashua and His mother's name was "Mariam." And yet, YOU use the titles......

You've already agreed that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called "GOD." So you've already agreed the two affirmations of the title are NOT wrong but are correct (indeed, that all Christians must affirm this). And you use titles never found in the Bible, titles Jesus never used so you don't believe we are limited to such. You've already boldly and clearly stated you've been wrong for 50 + pages.



- Josiah



.

However that does not mean you should call her that and possibly mislead many to worship her rather than the true focus which is Jesus. Anything thta takes away from Him is not of God

 

[George]

No disrespect, but this is really going around in circles.

 

[Alithis]

No disrespect, but this is really going around in circles.

as i said before . its your thread ..you can close it any time lol .

in the mean time ..who doesnt enjoy a "maryGo-round " ... ouuuh ouch ..those puns ouch ow ow :bike::spinningsmilie:

 

[Alithis]

the Lord JESUS never called himself JEsus .. however the messenger sent from God - "Did!" though not in the english form .

however the question was .. Why do you want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

 

[Josiah]

however the question was .. Why do you want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

1. You've ALREADY entirely abandoned your point that the teachings here are "wrong, false and blasphemous" and that YOU accept that Mary bore Jesus and that this Jesus whom Mary bore may correctly be called "GOD." Indeed, that all Christians must know those two things. Thus, your whole point for the past 50 + pages of your posts is rather what is wrong.

2. Your new premise - that we are forbidden to use terms and titles not found in the Bible - is equally absurd. Unless you are ALSO repudiating "Evangelicals" and yourself for using terms and titles such as "Bible" "Reverend" "Bible Study" "Sunday School" "Youth Group" "Trinity" "Praise Band" "Evangelical", etc. - all titles NEVER found in the Bible, all titles NEVER used by Jesus, all titles that GOD never used (that we know of) - then obviously YOU don't believe your OWN point... YOU don't apply YOUR OWN point. Since you reject it and don't apply it, it's silly to suggest we should.

the Lord JESUS never called himself JEsus

Yet, you do. Thus, you yourself reject your own new premise: that we cannot use a title or term that Jesus did not use.





.

 

[psalms 91]

What isnt rediculous is the fact that it is misleading and deceptive and people not strong in the Word can be misled and I have to wonder if that isnt the point. Anything that points to other than Christ is sin pure and simple

 

[Josiah]

What isnt rediculous is the fact that it is misleading and deceptive and people not strong in the Word can be misled and I have to wonder if that isnt the point. Anything that points to other than Christ is sin pure and simple

That has NOTHING to do with the teachings being "wrong, false, blasphemous" which is specifically what we've been discussing for some 40 pages.... whether the two things affirmed by the title are specifically, "Wrong, false and blasphemous"



See my post #14 (way, way back on page 2). See post 499.

SEVERAL of us have stated (repeatedly) that yes, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING has the potential to be misunderstood or misapplied by someone. This is not the singular exception to that. I've even posted - I'd estimate at least a dozen times - that YES, this title DOES seem to be misunderstood by a very few modern American and Australian "Evangelicals" (at least in the past 50 years or so). ALL THINGS have the potential to be misunderstood... and probably ALL THINGS are - at least among some humans. But that does NOT make the thing WRONG or FALSE or BLASPHEMY.... it makes it misunderstood. NO ONE here has remotely suggested this title is the only exception on the planet of something INCAPABLE of being misunderstood.... what several of us have been replying to (for some 40+ pages) is the declaration of these teachings as wrong, false, blasphemous. Even, at times (and I think this includes you, Bill - perhaps not) referencing a horrible heretic to defend that, saying that heretic and the heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism "sound good."



- Josiah




.

 

[Brighten04]

No disrespect, but this is really going around in circles.

:amen:

 

[psalms 91]

Yes it is and I see no point in posting the same thing over and over so I am leaving this thread to those who want the last word

 

[Josiah]

Bill....

See post 499.

Bill, you've been following along those who - for nearly all of this thread - have declared the teachings of this title to be "false, wrong and blasphemous." And applauding and supporting them. You've quoted their protests of the teachings and posted "sounds good." NOT stating, "actually it's true but - like everything - capable of being misunderstood" but you've supported that these teachings are "wrong, false and blasphemous." Some of those attacks you've been applauding and supporting have referred to heretics and some of what you've said "sounds good" is heresy (Arianism and Nestorianism).

Bill, the divinity of Jesus (and the BIBLICAL practice - as found verbatim in the BIBLE - of calling Jesus specifically "GOD") is not something to blast (for nearly 50 pages) as wrong and false. Blasting the two inseparable natures of Christ (for some 50 pages) is serious stuff. Sorry you think this is irrelevant - but friend, denying this is denying the very core of Christianity. There is a reason this title was declared correct an an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL that virtually all PROTESTANTS accept..... deny that Jesus is God and He cannot be the Savior. It matters, Bill.... And, IMO, your affirming those protesting these teachings... even noting heretics as "sounds good to me" is something I'd hope you'd address, Bill. It's important. Christianity and our salvation are on the line here. Again, see post # 499.

Bill, IF you now want to retract all your supports of the protestors for these many pages... and just go back to post #14 and say "I agree" then I'd rejoice. Sure, it can be misunderstood (like EVERYTHING) but I think it's extremely serious to denounce the Bible and the Councils and 2000 years of sound Christian theology declaring it "wrong, false, blasphemy" - even noting heretics as "sounds good."



- Josiah




.