Why was Mary necessary?

[Alithis]

There is a difference between assumption and said evidences. What the title means to imply and cause is no mystery.
That Mary's head is uncovered and shorn in likeness to the Pharaoh.


For the sake of the house, instruction must be Heard. Saul/Paul was very clear.
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know, that the
head of every man is Christ; and the(Christ is the Head of Joseph)
head of the woman is the man; and the( Joseph is the Head of Mary)
head of Christ is God.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.



Maybe if the beast takes the 3 ribs out of its mouth.
4 beast, one to each section of what makes up the whole heart of something that is desolate.

And what Defiles a man if his head is a woman?

Daniel's Vision of the Four Beasts
3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.



If anyone has a hard time following the meanings just let me know.

the reference to the covering of the head and the order of authority i fully get .. and it again displays why mary cannot be called the mother of God .
I just dont folow the reference to the three ribs .

 

[Josiah]

..... bible...... bible....... bible

The Bible never once uses the title "Bible" either.


But you have.
Three times in the same post.


You insist it is false, wrong and blasphemy to use a title never specifically found in the Bible.
It's blasphemy you claim to use a title or term that Jesus never used.
It's forbidden to use a title never found specifically in the Bible.
But you display that you find that rule you made silly.
You don't agree with it.
You don't follow it.

No one has ever said that the five consecutive words of the title are found in the Bible (you'd know that if you read). But the two teachings of it are. Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13.



Read posts 572, 586 and 590. I know you admitted you don't read, but try it.



.

Until you present the words "mother of God "..from direct scripture

Until you present the word "bible' from direct Scripture, I'll agree with you that this whole apologetic of yours is silly, absurd, to be rejected. After all, you used that title never once ever used in Scripture ... three times in just one post.



Read posts 572, 586 and 590. I know you admitted you don't read, but try it.





.

 

[Alithis]

Until you present the word "bible' from direct Scripture, I'll agree with you that this whole apologetic of yours is silly, absurd, to be rejected. After all, you used that title never once ever used in Scripture ... three times in just one post.



Read posts 572, 586 and 590. I know you admitted you don't read, but try it.





.

= STRAWMAN

 

[Alithis]

The topic is.. Why was mary necessary.
The well established answer is.. She wasn't, but a virgin was. And she happened to be betrothed to joseph who is of the line of david.
Then the topic morphed to the topic of the title "mother of God"
And it is clear that God has never given this title to mary.. It is not in scripture.it is a title which leads people into error.it does not originate in God.
And a summary is

the mary presented by the rcc -who happens to be the first to ever use this title for her to my knowledge -is STILL not the same mary that the bible speaks of -no mater how much caps underlining or colour is added .

the mary the bible speaks of

is NOT called the mother of God , any where in the scripture.
is NOT the queen of heaven
is NOT a co mediator
is NOT divine (born without sin )
is NOT a perpetual virgin
the person given all those attributes by the rcc is some one else entirely ( and it is known who ) but it is not the mary of the bible.

NONE of these terms are used in reference to mary in the scriptures .they ARE ALL added in by man .
whether or not you like the fact ior dislike that fact ..it is the case .

 

[Josiah]

STRAWMAN

That's been my point in posts you've admitted you haven't read. Your whole point is a strawman.


It's your STRAWMAN that we can't use titles not found directly in Scripture. That's been one of two arguments of yours for some 60 pages now: That we are forbidden to use titles or terms not found directly, verbatim in Scripture. And yup, YOU keep using terms and titles not found directly, verbatim in Scripture - proving (dramatically and constantly) that you yourself find your own strawman apologetic to be silly, absurd, wrong and one you don't accept or use.


Your other STRAWMAN is that the title is not what it is (you've admitted you don't read posts and there's no evidence you've read the title we're discussing) but rather, instead, in lieu of that, a whole plethora of STRAWMEN that you ASSUME you can substitute for the actual title that you may not have read. Silly, absurd, wild, crazy STRAWMEN like "Mary - the Goddess who Bore Jesus" "Mary - the Creator of the Creator" "Mary - The Source of the Trinity." All your incredible, absurd, wild STRAWMEN of your own amazing invention. Then (true to form for strawmen) you attack your own strawmen.... while showing you've yet to actually READ the title we're discussing.


See posts 572, 586, 590 I know you admitted you don't read, but try it.




- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

This thread would do a lot better if positions would be explained (much preferred with scriptural back up).

 

[Josiah]

This thread would do a lot better if positions would be explained (much preferred with scriptural back up).

Done. MANY times. But our friend has admitted he doesn't read the posts. Ergo....


And the "titles" that are being rebuked are often ones that don't exist, just strawmen of the protestors' own wild, incredible imagination.


It all comes down to this, Lamm. Are Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13 true or false? Do we stand with Scripture, with the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils or with Nestorius and Nestorianism?


I think posts 572, 586 and 590 do a fair job of what you request, Lamm. Do you agree, Lamm?



Blessings!


- Josiah




.

 

[Alithis]

This thread would do a lot better if positions would be explained (much preferred with scriptural back up).

they were a long time ago .. and rejected

 

[Alithis]

Done. MANY times. But our friend has admitted he doesn't read the posts. Ergo....


And the "titles" that are being rebuked are often ones that don't exist, just strawmen of the protestors' own wild, incredible imagination.


It all comes down to this, Lamm. Are Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13 true or false? Do we stand with Scripture, with the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils or with Nestorius and Nestorianism?


I think posts 572, 586 and 590 do a fair job of what you request, Lamm. Do you agree, Lamm?



Blessings!


- Josiah




.

that why i said .. ",do you know what am impasse is josiah ?"

it is why i changed tack and asked you
"why you want to call her something god doesnt call her "

then it got confusing becaseu you said "you never said you want to call her that"
yet you defended calling her that the whole thread.. so it gives a rather strange contradiction.
then you avoided the question .

but you do want to call her that .. you just dont actually know why

as there is no godly reason to call her something God has never called her or even said of her .

we have seen that it causes no error to not do so .. but it can and does casue great error .leading millions upon millions of people astray into the SIN of idolatry by elevating the created mary over the creator , making statues of her and kneeling before you are "asking" her for things .the word prayer means " to ask earnestly"

i won't have any part in that .

 

[Josiah]

that why i said .. ",do you know what am impasse is josiah ?"

Read posts 572, 586 and 590. The "impass" exists because, as you have admitted, you don't read the posts.

It all comes down to this. Are Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13 true or false? Do we stand with Scripture, with the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils or with Nestorius and Nestorianism?

"why you want to call her something god doesnt call her "

How much it would help if you READ what is posted to you. I've stated - over and over (but again, you admitted, you don't read what is posted to you), I couldn't care less what you choose to call ANYTHING or ANYONE. You're apologetic is that the two teachings here are "false, wrong and blasphemy." I have been stating that they are correct, valid, biblical and affirmed by the Councils. I've been defending the theology of Scripture and Christianity, you have been promoting Nestorianism.

as there is no godly reason to call her something God has never called her or even said of her .

It REALLY would help if you actually READ things. Start with posts # 14, 572, 586 and 590. I know you said you don't read, but try it.


This of course is your second apologetic: The two teachings stated in the title are false, wrong and blasphemy (you promoting the heresy of Nestorianism instead), that's the first, and then your second is that we are forbidden to use titles not used by Jesus (or found in the Bible). But you yourself have PROVEN - over and over - you yourself reject your own apologetic: you use titles not once used by Jesus and never found in the Bible. It's silly for you to insist on something you disagree with and you don't do. It's just silly.

Again, as you would know if you READ things, no one has ever stated that the five consecutive English words of this title appear as such in the NT. But the two teachings of it do. What is contrary to Scripture is your Nestorianism.

we have seen that it causes no error to not do so ..

Try READING post # 590. Actually, Nestorianism BEGAN with a rejection of this title.... and it nearly destroyed Christianity! What you are promoting has PROVEN to be very, very, very dangerous, destructive stuff that has lead MANY astray. Read post 590 (the last of many, many times we've TRIED to relate this to you, but as you said, you don't read).





.

 

[Alithis]

how silly .. - i dont read your posts because i already know what you're going to repeat and already disagree .

and stand on this simply truth
God never gives mary the title of "mother of God "

man does .

simple as that . you folow man when you do so .. i wil stick to following the lords leading ..he doesnt , so i wont either

for reasons already listed ..it leads to the great error of idolatry and i will have no art with aiding people into sin.

 

[Josiah]

how silly .. - i dont read your posts because i already know what you're going to repeat and already disagree .

and stand on this simply truth
God never gives mary the title of "mother of God "

man does .

God never gave any book the title of "Bible"

Man does.

But you don't believe it's wrong to use titles the Bible never does, titles Jesus never used, titles God never used. You use such man made titles all the times, often many times in the very same post.

Thus, you don't accept your apologetic there. So no reason why anyone else should.


Since you now reverse yourself on whether you read posts, then you know about your Nestorianism, the heresy you are promoting as your apologetic, and how very dangerous it is and has been - and you don't care. You know that both of the teachings here are biblical and correct but you call them "false, wrong and blasphemy" ANYWAY. I find that disturbing.

. you folow man when you do so .

You know you are following Nestorius.

I'm accepting Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13. I'm standing with Christianity and not following Nestorius.




.

 

[Alithis]

God never gave any book the title of "Bible"

Man does.

But you don't believe it's wrong to use titles the Bible never does, titles Jesus never used, titles God never used. You use such man made titles all the times, often many times in the very same post.

Thus, you don't accept your apologetic there. So no reason why anyone else should.


Since you now reverse yourself on whether you read posts, then you know about your Nestorianism, the heresy you are promoting as your apologetic, and how very dangerous it is and has been - and you don't care. You know that both of the teachings here are biblical and correct but you call them "false, wrong and blasphemy" ANYWAY. I find that disturbing.






You know you are following Nestorius.

I'm accepting Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13. I'm standing with Christianity and not following Nestorius.




.

see the line in RED .. thats a strawman man point -no one is discussing the term bible ..
and do you know of any one who has been led into idolatry in huge numbers by the use of the term "bible" ?Nope.
and you also can probably figure i have used the term as it is shorter to type then "scriptures"

So I stand on this simply truth
God never gives mary the title of "mother of God " .

man does .

simple as that . you follow man when you do so .. i wil stick to following the lords leading ..he doesnt , so i wont either .

for reasons already listed ..it leads to the great error of idolatry and i will have no part with aiding people into sin.

 

[Josiah]

see the line in RED .. thats a strawman man point

It's VERY relevant.


You have two apologetics:

1. The two teachings of the title (Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may be called God) you insist are "false, wrong and blasphemy" NOT potentionally misleading (a point I yielded many times, the first in post # 14), NOT capable of being misapplied (a point yielded many times) BUT you insisted that this TEACHING is "wrong, false and blasphemy." You blasted it with pretty much verbatim Nestorianism - that horrible, destructive, condemned heresy. You have pretty much echoed Nestorius verbatim - even making the IDENTICAL points about this very title that he did. You've promoted and taught Nestorianism (and to a lesser degree Arianism) to refute these teachings as "false, wrong and blasphemous." Thus, again echoing Nestorius hook, line and sinker, you refute Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13, you refute the inseparable two natures of Christ, you refute the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils. Now..... when you said you didn't read, I took comfort that maybe you were just ignorant.... ignorant of Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13.... ignorant of Nestorius and Nestorianism.... ignorant of the horrible, divisive heresy you're promoting and how much divisive harm it has done (nearly destroying Christianity).... I thought you were just ignorant. But now I know you're not. You know what you are doing, what you are denying and what you are promoting!


2. We can't use titles unless JESUS specificly, directly did in the Bible. At times, you've broadened that to what anyone did but directly stated as such in the Bible. Thing is: YOU use LOTS of titles in your posts that Jesus never specifically and directly used in the Bible.... YOU do so.... often several times in the same post! So, you don't accept your own apologetic. You don't follow your own apologetic. You do the OPPOSITE of what you are argument. You know it's silly. We know it's silly. Now again, I thought you were ignorant.... you just didn't realize you were shooting yourself in the foot... but now I know you HAVE read all the posts and so you know how silly this argument is, how you constantly contradict yourself and prove you don't buy it yourself.... but you keep doing it anyway. Disturbing.

and do you know of any one who has been led into idolatry in huge numbers by the use of the term "bible" ?Nope.

Do you know how many have been laid astray by denying this title, by promoting Nestorianism? MANY! It almost destroyed Christianity! But YOU KNOW THAT.... you've read the posts, you've learned about Nestorius.... you don't care.

God never gives mary the title of "mother of God "

God never gives any book the title "Bible" either.

But God DID state that Mary bore Jesus (Matthew 1:18) and that this Jesus may rightly be called "GOD" (Titus 2:13) - the teachings of the title that Nestorius rejected - and now you (knowingly!) echo, promoting the heresy of Nestorianism. That has lead MANY astray, nearly destroying Christianity. I use to think you didn't know.... now I know you do but don't care.




References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

https://carm.org/nestorianism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm




- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Is the argument about title or what title actually means. To rely on saying that God never gave that title...then you need to follow with what Josiah says about other titles that are currently used but shouldn't be according to those type of guidelines. Otherwise, your argument on that point is null and void.

If you argue what the title means, then as Josiah points out, you argue the validity of Jesus being fully God and fully man; not half God half man which is a known heresy.

 

[Alithis]

So I stand on this simply truth -still , unmoved and unchanged
God never gives mary the title of "mother of God " .

man does .

simple as that . you follow man when you do so .. i wil stick to following the lords leading ..he doesnt , so i wont either .

for reasons already listed ..it leads to the great error of idolatry and i will have no part with aiding people into sin.

 

[George]

So I stand on this simply truth -still , unmoved and unchanged
God never gives mary the title of "mother of God " .

man does .

simple as that . you follow man when you do so .. i wil stick to following the lords leading ..he doesnt , so i wont either .

for reasons already listed ..it leads to the great error of idolatry and i will have no part with aiding people into sin.

Then by all means continue thinking that lol.

 

[Alithis]

Then by all means continue thinking that lol.

i wil

and i can do so with confidence that im not opposing the word of God .

 

[Lamb]

Those who believe opposite of you are also convinced they are not opposing the Word of God. Jesus IS God. 100% God 100% man so the concept is true that Mary gave birth to God because Jesus couldn't be half God.

 

[Josiah]

So I stand on this simply truth -still , unmoved and unchanged
God never gives mary the title of "mother of God " .

man does .

Yes, we know.

You have two apologetics:


1. That the teachings of this title are "false, wrong and blasphemy" Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13 (the teachings being affirmed in the title) are ones you protest. Here you are echoing (perfectly!) the heretic Nestorius and promoting the ancient heresy of Nestorianism that lead SO many astray and nearly destroyed Christianity. https://carm.org/nestorianism Over and over and over again in these 60+ pages, several of us have protested your Nestorianism and defended the truths of Matthew 1:18, Titus 2:13, the doctrine of the Two Inseparable Natures of Christ, the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils but you have been persistent in your echoing of Nestorius and your promotion of one of the worst and most damaging heresies in history: Nestorianism. I use to think you were just ignorant since you noted you don't read what's posted here, but then you said you do - so you KNOW you are contradicting Scripture and the Councils and instead promoting a horrible heresy taht lead so very many astray and nearly destroyed the faith. THAT is why I've been so persistent here: your heresy is dangerous, very dangerous and destructive, it cannot go uncorrected.


2. You have this SILLY position that we can't use titles not found directly, verbatim in the Bible. Thing is: YOU DO. All the time. Proving that you don't believe your own apologetic, YOU think your own point is silly, wrong. YOU don't apply your own point. YOU have discredited it. You did it yourself. I use to think you were just ignorant - but now I know you do this on purpose, making a point that all of us know (including you) that you reject.





.