Why was Mary necessary?

[psalms 91]

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




.

Not at all, I admit to the titles with no problem however, they when combined lead people to pray to Mary, make her more than she is, and is misleading, I will not back away from that. You wish to take the positions and force people to say something that they know is misleading. If you want clear then I think I have just given it to you and any who wish tontinue with this

 

[Josiah]

Not at all, I admit to the titles with no problem however, they when combined lead people to pray to Mary, make her more than she is, and is misleading, I will not back away from that.

See post # 14. See post # 499.

LONG, LONG, LONG ago it was admitted that this - LIKE ALL THINGS - has the potential to be misunderstood by someone. I stated that many, many times in this thread. So did others. There has been no debate on that point whatsoever. But you have been rebuking me for pages.... and defending, supporting and applauding those insisting that the title is NOT 'capable of being misunderstood' but specifically, particularly "wrong, false and blasphemous." There is a VAST difference there. What you have been supporting, applauding, insisting "sounds good" is (I hate to be so blunt) heresy.... in one case, a very notorious HERETIC was referenced and you posted "sounds good." A heretic! Denying the two inseparable natures of Christ.

Bill.... it is serious stuff to deny this central doctrine of the Christian faith. It's serious stuff to proclaim Scripture wrong to call Jesus specifically "GOD." The two inseparable natures of Christ is a critical doctrine for without it, Christianity collaspes and Christ ceases to be our Savior. It's why some of us have been fighting hard against Arianism and Nestorianism so evident in this thread. And disturbed by you (sic) supporting them, applauding them - rebuking us.

You wish to take the positions and force people to say something that they know is misleading.

That was addressed WAY BACK on page two, post #14. And repeated over and over and over.

No, truth is not misleading. But yes, truth can be misunderstood. There is a difference, my friend. But again, I KNOW that in the past 50 years or so, among American "Evangelicals", there is recently a tendency to misunderstand this. I understand that. THUS, my post # 14 and a point I brought up many times in this thread. You never once agreed with me in ANY of those posts. You instead fought against me as I attempted to defend these two truths against the Arians and Nestorians who call them "false, wrong and blasphemous." What you said "sounds good."




.

 

[psalms 91]

See post # 14. See post # 499.

LONG, LONG, LONG ago it was admitted that this - LIKE ALL THINGS - has the potential to be misunderstood by someone. I stated that many, many times in this thread. So did others. There has been no debate on that point whatsoever. But you have been rebuking me for pages.... and defending, supporting and applauding those insisting that the title is NOT 'capable of being misunderstood' but specifically, particularly "wrong, false and blasphemous." There is a VAST difference there. What you have been supporting, applauding, insisting "sounds good" is (I hate to be so blunt) heresy.... in one case, a very notorious HERETIC was referenced and you posted "sounds good." A heretic! Denying the two inseparable natures of Christ.

Bill.... it is serious stuff to deny this central doctrine of the Christian faith. It's serious stuff to proclaim Scripture wrong to call Jesus specifically "GOD." The two inseparable natures of Christ is a critical doctrine for without it, Christianity collaspes and Christ ceases to be our Savior. It's why some of us have been fighting hard against Arianism and Nestorianism so evident in this thread. And disturbed by you (sic) supporting them, applauding them - rebuking us.





That was addressed WAY BACK on page two, post #14. And repeated over and over and over.

No, truth is not misleading. But yes, truth can be misunderstood. There is a difference, my friend. But again, I KNOW that in the past 50 years or so, among American "Evangelicals", there is recently a tendency to misunderstand this. I understand that. THUS, my post # 14 and a point I brought up many times in this thread. You never once agreed with me in ANY of those posts. You instead fought against me as I attempted to defend these two truths against the Arians and Nestorians who call them "false, wrong and blasphemous." What you said "sounds good."




.

It seems that once again things get misrepresented and twisted, 1. I agree that jesus is God, I do not agree to praying to Mary or anyone other than Jesus. Secondly while both titles are correct combining them into what you want is wrong, wrong, wrong. If your goal is to misdirect and m,islead then you have suceeded within your own church and many others and then wonder why people come against it. Clever words and twisting them dioes not hide the fact that it is wrong and sinful if it leads to taking the focus off Jesus. Are we done with this now or shall we go in circles some more

 

[Josiah]

It seems that once again things get misrepresented and twisted, 1. I agree that jesus is God, I do not agree to praying to Mary or anyone other than Jesus.

Then why argue and disagree with ME for pages and pages! I never once even mentioned anyone praying to anything or anyone. Nor does the title. Nor does the Bible. And my responses were NEVER to that point, so again, why protest me?

And why agree, applaud and approve those insisting that it is specifically "false, wrong and blasphemy" to insist that Jesus may CORRECTLY be called "GOD" as the Bible itself verbatim does, as the Councils do? THAT has been the sole and only and exclusive issue of all my posts in this thread. The ones you've been disagreeing with. And why quote the protestors here in their promotion of Arianism and Nestorianism, the protestors of calling the Jesus born of Mary specifically "GOD" (as we all know Scripture itself verbatim and literally does) and their references to a notorious heretic and noting that you agree with what they stated? Your "sounds good" reply to that?

Secondly while both titles are correct

Then for 50 pages, you've been "siding" with the wrong folks! I'M among those insisting that the teachings are CORRECT and that Arianianism and Nestorianism are WRONG. You've been insisting I'M wrong and the protestors of what you NOW say is correct are RIGHT in condemning it as "false, wrong and blasphemy."

And you evidently chose to forget a point I made over and over and over, beginning with post # 14 way back on page two. Did you ever read it? Or any of the many others where I said the same thing? Did you read it since I reminded you of it?

combining them into what you want is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I disagree. Two truths does not equal one wrong. It may result in something hard to understand (such as Jesus is BOTH fully man and fully God). As the first, third and fifth ecumenical councils all stressed, it is CRITICAL to affirm that JESUS (the one born of Mary) IS God - fully, for without that affirmation, Christianity falls. By separating the Jesus from physical reality (as the heretic Arius did), by saying the Jesus who is God is NOT the Jesus who was born of Mary and who lived and who died means that Jesus is NOT our Savior. Thus it was important to link the divine Jesus WITH the physical Jesus - the one born of Mary. The flesh-and-blood, the bored Jesus. Thus, the title. There's HISTORY here, addressing the HERESIES you've been applauding and saying "sounds good." The DIVINE Jesus (GOD) is not different or disassociated from the HUMAN Jesus as Arius and Nestorius tried to do (and as our protestors here have tried to do - with your support). The one born of Mary (Jesus) IS God - fully. A repudiation of two condemned heretics and their followers (seems they still have followers today). His two natures are FULL and INSEPARABLE. So, not only do two truths NOT equal "wrong, wrong, wrong" but actually serves to underline that JESUS (that flesh and blood person born of Mary) IS God (as the Bible itself verbatim, literally, exactly states).

If your goal is to misdirect and m,islead then you have suceeded within your own church

The "goal" is to convey truth. Even two of them. AGAINST condemned heretics (one of which you said "sounds good") and heresies (which you've been applauding and supporting). Heretics and heresies that deny that JESUS (the one born of Mary) IS God, as Scripture states. The goal is to condemn heresies and defend the Bible and Christianity.

I know of no Lutheran or Catholic or Orthodox (together, that's about 75% of all Christians today) who are "confused" by this. We've been taught the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ. We've been taught that Mary bore Jesus (that gets a lot of emphasis around Christmas time) AND that THIS Jesus IS God (that gets emphasis all year, but especially in Epiphany). NOTHING in EITHER of those doctrines is seen by us as heretical or confusing. And thus, nor is the title or teaching that Mary bore Jesus who correctly is called "GOD" (as the Bible itself does). I don't think this "confused" anyone until maybe 50 years ago or so when it does seem a few American "Evangelicals" somehow, for some reason, got "confused." Of course, as we've witnessed, Arianism and Nestorianism - in spite of over 1500 years of condemnation - refuse to die and stick of their ugly heads from time to time, hoping to destory Christianity.

Clever words and twisting them dioes not hide the fact that it is wrong and sinful if it leads to taking the focus off Jesus. Are we done with this now or shall we go in circles some more

Affirming that Jesus is God is NOT leading people away from Christ. Insisting that Christ is NOT fully and inseparably God does that. Arianism and Nestorianism (and the heretic you noted "sounds good) are all about taking the focus off of Jesus. And no, it is not "clever words" for the BIBLE to literally state that Mary bore JESUS.... and it's not "clever words" for the BIBLE to literally, verbatim called THAT Jesus "GOD."


IF you are now withdrawing all your support for the Arianism and Nestorianism..... IF you are now agreeing with us (and verbatim with Scripture) that Mary bore Jesus and THAT Jesus may correctly be called (specifically) "GOD" rather than with those calling these things "wrong, false and blasphemous" then I'm glad. Welcome back to orthodox, biblical, traditional Christianity, lol. You now stand with us!!!! IF your point is that - very recently - some "Evangelicals" have found these truths "confusing" then read post # 14. NO ONE SAID OTHERWISE.... in fact, I said just that, many times. So why are you protesting ME?




.

 

[TurtleHare]

It seems that once again things get misrepresented and twisted, 1. I agree that jesus is God, I do not agree to praying to Mary or anyone other than Jesus. Secondly while both titles are correct combining them into what you want is wrong, wrong, wrong. If your goal is to misdirect and m,islead then you have suceeded within your own church and many others and then wonder why people come against it. Clever words and twisting them dioes not hide the fact that it is wrong and sinful if it leads to taking the focus off Jesus. Are we done with this now or shall we go in circles some more

Is Mary the mother of the Christ? Is Mary the mother of the Savior?

Still not sure why you keep bringing up prayer when that isn't what the term Mary mother of God even alludes to and no one but a few of you who are against Mary Mother of God has brought up. I'd also like to know how it leads people away from Jesus when in fact it actually puts the focus on the fact that Jesus is God.

 

[Josiah]

Still not sure why you keep bringing up prayer when that isn't what the term Mary mother of God even alludes to and no one but a few of you who are against Mary Mother of God has brought up.

I've NOT A CLUE...... The title never mentions prayer AT ALL. And NONE OF US defending the two biblical truths has even mentioned prayer - at all. Seems like a diversion.


And when I look at those (sadly, surprisingly including Bill) who have been debating with me concerning these two Biblical truths (as stated VERBATIM in Scripture), they can't be debating THAT point with me since I never raised it. ALL I have been discussing are the two truths of the title, which they have consistently called "false, wrong and blasphemous." NOT "Biblical and correct but recently at times misunderstood by some Evangelicals." Two VERY different issues! The protestors here have been promoting Arianism and Nestorianism, over against the Biblical truths I've been supporting and defending.

I'd also like to know how it leads people away from Jesus when in fact it actually puts the focus on the fact that Jesus is God.

I've been scratching my head over that one, too, lol. AMAZING! How is insisting that JESUS IS GOD detracting from Christ? Isn't it rather detracting to insist that Jesus is NOT God? That Jesus (born of Mary) may NOT be literally and specificially called "GOD"? Isn't THAT what detracts from Jesus?



Now... why the point that THIS JESUS was born? Because of the HERESY that the flesh and blood Jesus - the one who was BORN, who came from a WOMB - is not God and cannot be divine but only human. Heretics also spoke of Jesus - but taught that Jesus was ONLY a man but that sometimes God sort of popped along side of him now and then. No! Jesus - yeah, THAT Jesus whose birth is recorded twice in the Bible, THAT Jesus who was born and who walked and who ate, THAT Jesus IS fully God, fully divine. So there IS a solid, historic, theological reason to say that JESUS (the one we're talking about now) was BORN, came from a WOMB, has a MOTHER) IS "God." Of couse, Jesus is ALSO fully AND INSEPARABLE man (100% both - always - inseparably) but that wasn't the heresy of Arianism and Nestorianism (or the one we see among the protestors here), it's JESUS' full divinity they call "wrong, false and blasphemy" It's those Scriptures that literally and verbatim state "JESUS is GOD" they call wrong.

See post # 499.



Thanks Turtle for weighing in. I deeply and personally appreciate it! This IS important stuff!!! It gets to the very core of CHRISTianity. Because if Jesus (the Jesus who was BORN..... of a woman) is not fully, inseparably God - we're all still not saved, He is not our Savior. Theology matters. Heresy is DANGEROUS. There's a reason why the truth here was so boldly affirmed by the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.



Thanks again, Turtle!



- Josiah





.

 

[Alithis]

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

actually Bill ,it is ridiculous and misleading and outright dishonest for any one to say i have "abandoned my point "haha . i have certainly not . just because i have ceased from repeating points that have been presented and outrightly rejected ,in no way suggest i have abandoned them . the poster is being somewhat belligerent and not a little dishonest in this use of misrepresentation .
i hold to every thing i have stated in agreement with the word of God as to what IS written and dont put a lot of stock in doctrine based on what is NOT written .doctrine based on a dogma ,a chosen and preferred filler of the gaps in order to manipulate a scriptural text to force it into conformity to a NON scriptural setting ..

tut tut , we should always conform TO the word of God .. never the other way around .

so having laid out those points (which i stil maintain) and seeing no point in furthering their repetition ,i changed tact to see if i could not discover the drive behind the Dogma of the title used .

which has led me to ask the question of those that so dogmatically insist oin the title ..

the question was .. Why do you want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her? which i shall now go and ask again .

 

[Alithis]

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

 

[Lamb]

She's Jesus' mother and He's God. That's the answer to why we would want to call her that.

 

[psalms 91]

Is Mary the mother of the Christ? Is Mary the mother of the Savior?

Still not sure why you keep bringing up prayer when that isn't what the term Mary mother of God even alludes to and no one but a few of you who are against Mary Mother of God has brought up. I'd also like to know how it leads people away from Jesus when in fact it actually puts the focus on the fact that Jesus is God.

Because it leads to that, can you deny that a lot in this faith dont do that?

 

[Brighten04]

So she is goddess .

 

[Josiah]

Because it leads to that, can you deny that a lot in this faith dont do that?

Again.... even if your premise were true (and Bill, you've not even ATTEMPTED to prove it is), then how does that prove that the two teachings here are specifically "wrong, false and blasphemy" - a point you've been advancing, promoting and applauding for pages and pages? WHY - pray tell - is it specifically "false, wrong and blasphemy" to hold that Mary bore Jesus and that this Jesus may correctly be called "GOD?" If these things are true - then, Bill, they are true and NOT "false, wrong and blasphemy" as you have been promoting.


This DIVERSION (which has NOTHING to do with the teachings being specifically "false, wrong and blasphemous" and thus has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING the traditional Christians here have posted), please substantiate your accusation: that all who embrace these two teachings ERGO pray TO Mary. It's your premise, it's your accusation, you (and one or two others) have made it - then RAN from it as fast as you can! Why? Please document that the approx. 1.5 billion Christians who embrace this term and the nearly 2.0 billion who agree with Scripture on these teachings ERGO pray TO Mary. Heck, I've made it easy! Lamm and I both embrace these two teachings and therefore the title. Just prove that we two (just TWO) pray TO Mary and that the REASON WHY we both pray TO Mary is because we accept these two teachings (rather than insist they are wrong, false and blasphemy). I could not possibly make it easier for you to prove your whole premise. But so far, all have ignored this. Including you.



This has been ignored. We have to wonder why..... Maybe this complete diversion is baseless, too? But in any case, even if that were true, it would NOT mean that ERGO the Bible, the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Counsels, and the vast majority of Christians are "false, wrong and blasphemous" for affirming that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called God. And it does NOTHING to support the Arianism and Nestorianism that you've been applauding and saying it "sounds good."




Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

bah PI am tired of the same old same old page after page, you can have the last word, doesnt really matter as noone will wade through all of this

 

[Josiah]

bah PI am tired of the same old same old page after page, you can have the last word, doesnt really matter as noone will wade through all of this

Bill...... don't run from what you've posted.

You have been affirming some here whose point is that these two teachings are "false, wrong and blasphemy" in spite of what Scripture states and what the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils state. Please subtantiate that these teachings are false, wrong and blasphemy.... support your affirmation that the views of Arianism and Nestorianism that you posted "sound good" ARE good.

You've stated that affirming these teachings rather than Arianism and Nestorianism means that ergo the believer prays TO Mary. Thus, several here pray TO Mary according to you - and the reason why is that we affirm rather than deny these two teachings. THAT INCLUDES ME. This is an accusation you've made to ME by application since you know I affirm rather than deny these teachings. Please Bill, no "hit and run." You've made an accusation. Now, document it as true: I pray TO Mary and the REASON WHY is because I affirm these two teachings rather than Arianism and Nestorianism. You've made the accusation (as a reason to denounce the teachings)..... now substantiate it. Please no "hit and RUN." Bill.... our HOSPITALITY person..... if I posted that all non-Lutherans cheat on their spouses BECAUSE they are not Lutheran (and I'm posting that to YOU as a non-Lutheran), might you seek at least some substantiation of that rather than just the perpetual repeat of the accusation? Well, look in the mirror. Your premise now for why these two teachings are "false, wrong and blasphemous" (and ergo Scripture is) is that those that affirm the teachings rather than those two heresies is that embracing the teachings means that ERGO, THEREFORE, MANDATES that they pray TO Mary. Prove it. Start with Lamm and I.




.

 

[Lamb]

So she is goddess .

Why would a vessel become the thing it's carrying? It doesn't.

 

[visionary]

Why would a vessel become the thing it's carrying? It doesn't.

Exactly!!!!

 

[psalms 91]

Bill...... don't run from what you've posted.

You have been affirming some here whose point is that these two teachings are "false, wrong and blasphemy" in spite of what Scripture states and what the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils state. Please subtantiate that these teachings are false, wrong and blasphemy.... support your affirmation that the views of Arianism and Nestorianism that you posted "sound good" ARE good.

You've stated that affirming these teachings rather than Arianism and Nestorianism means that ergo the believer prays TO Mary. Thus, several here pray TO Mary according to you - and the reason why is that we affirm rather than deny these two teachings. THAT INCLUDES ME. This is an accusation you've made to ME by application since you know I affirm rather than deny these teachings. Please Bill, no "hit and run." You've made an accusation. Now, document it as true: I pray TO Mary and the REASON WHY is because I affirm these two teachings rather than Arianism and Nestorianism. You've made the accusation (as a reason to denounce the teachings)..... now substantiate it. Please no "hit and RUN." Bill.... our HOSPITALITY person..... if I posted that all non-Lutherans cheat on their spouses BECAUSE they are not Lutheran (and I'm posting that to YOU as a non-Lutheran), might you seek at least some substantiation of that rather than just the perpetual repeat of the accusation? Well, look in the mirror. Your premise now for why these two teachings are "false, wrong and blasphemous" (and ergo Scripture is) is that those that affirm the teachings rather than those two heresies is that embracing the teachings means that ERGO, THEREFORE, MANDATES that they pray TO Mary. Prove it. Start with Lamm and I.




.

How do you prove what people pray other than look at what they do. Does not the rosary have prayer to mary? And do you deny that many Catholics pray to her? Lets cut through all the postering and just get down to it instead of the same post time after time after time, I am really done so continue to exhort yourself or whoever else wants ion this merry go round that never stops

 

[visionary]

And the walls came tumbling down.

 

[Alithis]

ok so i wil ask again and thids time see if the whole question can be addressed

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

 

[Alithis]

And the walls came tumbling down.

oh they were never up ..thats why there is so much attack om "premise " .. and attitude and thought ,because there is no actual foundations point from the word of god upon which to stand this title ..its like placing a crown on the head of someone who is not there ..it just plops flat to the ground when you remove the porcelain statue your sticking it on