Why was Mary necessary?

[visionary]

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

The walls I was talking about were the faith walls that were built on a traditional understanding and when the storm comes, when the wind blows.. they will come down.

 

[Josiah]

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.

It's YOUR argument against these teachings..... It's YOUR premise. It's YOUR attack on many of us here at CH. The substantiation for what YOU'VE posted is.... YOURS, Bill.

Does not the rosary have prayer to mary?

1. This title never comes up in the typical Rosary prayers.


2. No, the Rosary has no words at all. Just beads and sometimes other things, but no words or prayers on it.


3. Prove that Lamm and I pray the Rosary (and how often), then that ERGO we affirm these two biblical teachings rather than Arianism and Nestorianism.... and that we both pray TO Mary BECAUSE we affirm these two biblical teachings rather than two heresies , Arianism and Nestorianism.

do you deny that many Catholics pray to her?

1. Yes, I do. SOME perhaps pray TO her, most in my experience don't, although they may ask her to pray FOR them.


2. Your accusation was NOT that it MAY be that SOME Catholics pray to Mary. Your whole point is that the teaching that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called "GOD" is false, wrong and blasphemy BECAUSE believing that (rather than the two heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism) MANDATES that they ERGO, THEREFORE, AS A RESULT, pray TO Mary. Well..... lets stick with the well over half a BILLION Christians who are NOT Catholics but who believe these biblical things (rather than two condemned heresies) AND embrace the title that proclaims these two teachings. Several of those are active posters here at CH, some are on staff with you here at CH. Just stick with two: Lamm and I. Prove that the two of us pray TO Mary, and the reason for this, the singular cause of this, is that both of believe that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called "GOD" and therefore embrace the title that teaches that. Bill, prove it. Your entire premise falls on this. You've accused Lamm and I (and several others here at CH) of praying TO Mary since we stand with these Scriptures and Councils rather than the two heresies you said "sounds good." AND your whole premise is that the teachings are wrong BECAUSE Lamm and I (and George and several others here) pray TO Mary as a result of beleiving this.

The ball is in your court. Don't just hit and run, bill.




.

 

[psalms 91]

It's YOUR argument against these teachings..... It's YOUR premise. It's YOUR attack on many of us here at CH. The substantiation for what YOU'VE posted is.... YOURS, Bill.






1. This title never comes up in the typical Rosary prayers.


2. No, the Rosary has no words at all. Just beads and sometimes other things, but no words or prayers on it.


3. Prove that Lamm and I pray the Rosary (and how often), then that ERGO we affirm these two biblical teachings rather than Arianism and Nestorianism.... and that we both pray TO Mary BECAUSE we affirm these two biblical teachings rather than two heresies , Arianism and Nestorianism.






1. Yes, I do. SOME perhaps pray TO her, most in my experience don't, although they may ask her to pray FOR them.


2. Your accusation was NOT that it MAY be that SOME Catholics pray to Mary. Your whole point is that the teaching that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called "GOD" is false, wrong and blasphemy BECAUSE believing that (rather than the two heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism) MANDATES that they ERGO, THEREFORE, AS A RESULT, pray TO Mary. Well..... lets stick with the well over half a BILLION Christians who are NOT Catholics but who believe these biblical things (rather than two condemned heresies) AND embrace the title that proclaims these two teachings. Several of those are active posters here at CH, some are on staff with you here at CH. Just stick with two: Lamm and I. Prove that the two of us pray TO Mary, and the reason for this, the singular cause of this, is that both of believe that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called "GOD" and therefore embrace the title that teaches that. Bill, prove it. Your entire premise falls on this. You've accused Lamm and I (and several others here at CH) of praying TO Mary since we stand with these Scriptures and Councils rather than the two heresies you said "sounds good." AND your whole premise is that the teachings are wrong BECAUSE Lamm and I (and George and several others here) pray TO Mary as a result of beleiving this.

The ball is in your court. Don't just hit and run, bill.




.

As I said all yours, I am sure that those who know better are sitting back watching you attack rather than admit what you already know,isnt asking Mary to pray for them the same thing as praying to Mary? Does that not shift the focus away from Jesus? Enjoy the thread all 60 some pages of it with most just being a trip around the same bush I am done, post away I will not answer any more posts in this thread and if you keep it up not any of yours in any other thread. Must have hit a nerve I guess

 

[Brighten04]

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

OK, help me understand what you are saying here. God set that everything reproduce after it's kind.God begat Jesus with Mary. Mary gave birth to Jesus who is God/man. This makes Mary mother of God? But she is not goddess because she was just the pot ? But the pot can be called the mother of God? And the pot is venerated and prayed to but the pot is not goddess. Sorry this concept is very confusing to me.

 

[Alithis]

As I said all yours, I am sure that those who know better are sitting back watching you attack rather than admit what you already know,isnt asking Mary to pray for them the same thing as praying to Mary? Does that not shift the focus away from Jesus? Enjoy the thread all 60 some pages of it with most just being a trip around the same bush I am done, post away I will not answer any more posts in this thread and if you keep it up not any of yours in any other thread. Must have hit a nerve I guess

not to mention the word "pray" means "to ask earnestly ..

 

[Alithis]

The walls I was talking about were the faith walls that were built on a traditional understanding and when the storm comes, when the wind blows.. they will come down.

yup .. and as such .. they were never really up because such walls are an illusionary security . when the storm comes they fall .. they have no foundation in the rock

 

[Alithis]

It's YOUR argument against these teachings..... It's YOUR premise. It's YOUR attack on many of us here at CH. The substantiation for what YOU'VE posted is.... YOURS, Bill.






1. This title never comes up in the typical Rosary prayers.


2. No, the Rosary has no words at all. Just beads and sometimes other things, but no words or prayers on it.


3. Prove that Lamm and I pray the Rosary (and how often), then that ERGO we affirm these two biblical teachings rather than Arianism and Nestorianism.... and that we both pray TO Mary BECAUSE we affirm these two biblical teachings rather than two heresies , Arianism and Nestorianism.






1. Yes, I do. SOME perhaps pray TO her, most in my experience don't, although they may ask her to pray FOR them.


2. Your accusation was NOT that it MAY be that SOME Catholics pray to Mary. Your whole point is that the teaching that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus may be called "GOD" is false, wrong and blasphemy BECAUSE believing that (rather than the two heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism) MANDATES that they ERGO, THEREFORE, AS A RESULT, pray TO Mary. Well..... lets stick with the well over half a BILLION Christians who are NOT Catholics but who believe these biblical things (rather than two condemned heresies) AND embrace the title that proclaims these two teachings. Several of those are active posters here at CH, some are on staff with you here at CH. Just stick with two: Lamm and I. Prove that the two of us pray TO Mary, and the reason for this, the singular cause of this, is that both of believe that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called "GOD" and therefore embrace the title that teaches that. Bill, prove it. Your entire premise falls on this. You've accused Lamm and I (and several others here at CH) of praying TO Mary since we stand with these Scriptures and Councils rather than the two heresies you said "sounds good." AND your whole premise is that the teachings are wrong BECAUSE Lamm and I (and George and several others here) pray TO Mary as a result of beleiving this.

The ball is in your court. Don't just hit and run, bill.




.

? tere is no atack by bill or any one .
we desire to stand upon what is written .if what some one states is at enmity to what is written we desire to know what is its foundation ?from whence does it originate

but as i have said having offered many points and having asked the question i already know the answer to ,being , .. where in scripture does God give mary the title "mother of God " ? Answer : NOwhere ,he does not and cannot .
and these points, having being repetitively posted, have been ignored by some .

So i decided to investigate the motive behind clinging to a title that does not originate in God ..
thus I have asked this question ..

the question was and modified now Is .. Why do you Josiah want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

 

[Josiah]

where in scripture does God give mary the title "mother of God " ? Answer : NOwhere ,he does not and cannot .

Ah.... since you can't support Arianism and Nestorianism..... since you now realize you can't deny these teachings..... all you got is your new "We-can't-use-terms-that-aren't-found-in-the-Bible" diversion. Well, you won't find the title "BIBLE" in the Bible either. Or Trinity. Or Reverend. Or Youth Group. Or Worship Center. Or Altar Call. Or Sunday School. Or Bible Study. So, do you condemn those terms, those titles? No, you don't. In fact, you have used the term "BIBLE" yourself. You don't care if terms and titles are found in the Bible. So, since YOU reject your premise, since YOU reject your own argument, since YOU regard your own point as wrong, since YOU don't follow your own insistence - why should any swallow it? When YOU yourself don't?


And.... noting that the word "BIBLE" doesn't appear in the Bible is NOT proof that it is "false, wrong and blasphemy" to hold that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called God. You simply have diverted your whole argument to a silly one that YOU YOURSELF don't accept or follow.




.

 

[Alithis]

Ah.... since you can't support Arianism and Nestorianism..... since you now realize you can't deny these teachings..... all you got is your new "We-can't-use-terms-that-aren't-found-in-the-Bible" diversion. Well, you won't find the title "BIBLE" in the Bible either. Or Trinity. Or Reverend. Or Youth Group. Or Worship Center. Or Altar Call. Or Sunday School. Or Bible Study. So, do you condemn those terms, those titles? No, you don't. In fact, you have used the term "BIBLE" yourself. You don't care if terms and titles are found in the Bible. So, since YOU reject your premise, since YOU reject your own argument, since YOU regard your own point as wrong, since YOU don't follow your own insistence - why should any swallow it? When YOU yourself don't?


And.... noting that the word "BIBLE" doesn't appear in the Bible is NOT proof that it is "false, wrong and blasphemy" to hold that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called God. You simply have diverted your whole argument to a silly one that YOU YOURSELF don't accept or follow.




.

how do you know i dont condemn those terms "? we haven't discussed them ..this is that strawman thing again - your ignoring the entire topic .raising an issue i have not raised which is "not the topic" and then refuting the point i did not raise nor am even talking about ...you need to drop that approach. others pointed it out to me that i did that often .. so i have tried much harder to stop doing it .

Here is the loose definition -A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

On this thread you and i have been discussing the term or title "mary mother of God "

i have pointed out it is a term that 1. God did not give mary and 2. it is a term that is blasphemous .and 3. that it is a title that is untrue . mary is the mother of the flesh man .. for while God "became " flesh .. he was God before he became flesh thus she is not, never was, nor ever could be the " mother of God " no one can .which is why God never gives her the title .

you have disagreed rather vehemently . however when asked "where then does God give her this title ,you have not be able to produce from direct unambiguous scripture any such reference .
you have how ever made your own recipe . you have taken ingredient A from one scriptural verse ..you have mixed in ingredient B and C from some other scriptural verses .. THEN comes the crunchy bit .. you have added in ingredient D from a NON scriptural source that you call on to give things the flavour you desire (being the jar of dried traditions ) in order to come up with the result you desire .
but at no time can you come up with that result without adding in to the scripture.

if you could show us where God gives her his title -without adding ANYTHING and using ONLY the scripture that would be impressive . because its not In the scripture .

so ... since an impasse was reached .i decided to search into the motives behind you insistance ..in order to get you to also search the motives behind it .
by asking you a question which thus far .you have rather obviously avoided answering .

the questions IS .. .. Why do you Josiah want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

 

[Lamb]

OK, help me understand what you are saying here. God set that everything reproduce after it's kind.God begat Jesus with Mary. Mary gave birth to Jesus who is God/man. This makes Mary mother of God? But she is not goddess because she was just the pot ? But the pot can be called the mother of God? And the pot is venerated and prayed to but the pot is not goddess. Sorry this concept is very confusing to me.

How man here pray and venerate Mary? I want a show of hands of those who believe she is the Mother of God. Maybe this will finally put it to rest that not everyone believes this way??

Mine are down because I do neither and yet I have no issue with saying she is the Mother of God.

 

[Brighten04]

How man here pray and venerate Mary? I want a show of hands of those who believe she is the Mother of God. Maybe this will finally put it to rest that not everyone believes this way??

Mine are down because I do neither and yet I have no issue with saying she is the Mother of God.

That is double speak Lam. You can't say you believe she is the mother of God and keep your hand down.:rotfl: Look there is no need to continue this discussion. People believe what they believe. I believe Mary gave birth to Lord Jesus, and I am grateful for that. But I do not give her the title of mother of God because Jesus never called her mother, He rebuked the one person who wanted to raise her to mother, He always addressed her as woman, and He had to redeem her. IMHO to call her mother of God elevates her to God status since everything reproduces after it's own kind. Now our Father does things that we do not understand. He is God. He can do that.We know that Jesus was present with our Father before the foundation of the world. We know that He visited Abraham (some would debate that).Now YOU said she was a vessel. I am inclined to agree with you. She was a pot.:lol:

 

[Josiah]

How man here pray and venerate Mary? I want a show of hands of those who believe she is the Mother of God. Maybe this will finally put it to rest that not everyone believes this way??

Mine are down because I do neither and yet I have no issue with saying she is the Mother of God.

Well.... after FIFTY PAGES of arguing that these teachings (Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may correctly be called "God") are specifically "false, wrong, blasphemy" .... After FIFTY PAGES of arguing against Scripture and 3 Ecumenical Councils, after FIFTY PAGES of arguing for the heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism (even specifically referencing a horrible heretic as supporting their position), after all that..... those rejecting these teachings have totally changed their approach.

NOW, this title is wrong BECAUSE Jesus never specifically stated these verbatim words. The whole argument is that we are disallowed to use any title or term not found in the Bible in red print coming from the mouth of Jesus. So condemnable are words like: Bible, Trinity, Protestant, Evangelical, Reverend, Sunday School, Bible Study, Youth Group and a host of other words these people use but now claim are wrong, false and blasphemy. Of course, THEY use these words so they condemn themselves OR simply prove they don't believe their own argument and they don't follow their own rubric (so why should others?).

It's similar to what we see in other threads by the same folks. For example, not being able to show Scripture stating any of their long, long, long list of Baptism Restrictions, after SEVENTY PAGES, they gave up and changed the whole argument. Now.... we can't do anything unless Scripture shows JESUS doing it. Of course, they are posting that on the internet, so they need to specifically show that JESUS posted on the internet.... they condemn themselves or prove that they don't accept their own argument or follow their own advice (so why should we?).




.

 

[Josiah]

On this thread you and i have been discussing the term or title "mary mother of God "

i have pointed out it is a term that 1. God did not give mary and 2. it is a term that is blasphemous .and 3. that it is a title that is untrue . mary is the mother of the flesh man .. for while God "became " flesh .. he was God before he became flesh thus she is not, never was, nor ever could be the " mother of God " no one can .which is why God never gives her the title .

Correct. There are two teachings being affirmed here:

1. Mary bore Jesus
2. This Jesus may correctly be called God.

BOTH of these are stated verbatim in Scripture.


You have condemned these as specifically "false, wrong, blasphemy" And thus the Scriptures that verbatim state these two teaches as "false, wrong and blasphemy" as well as the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils (generally accepted by Protetants) as "false, wrong and blasphemy." Instead, you have parroted two condemned heresies: Arianism and Nestorianism. Even referencing a horrible heretic as one who agrees with you.


Some of us reject these two horrible heresies. Some of believe Scripture that specifically states that Mary bore Jesus and that this Jesus may correctly be called "GOD." But you have been condemning us for over fifty pages.

when asked "where then does God give her this title

Correct. This is your new spin. And it's silly. It is absurd to argue that we cannot use titles that we can't quote God as using. It's not only absurd, but you yourself don't agree with you yourself on this. And why aren't you equally condemning as specifically "wrong, false and blasphemous" those who use titles such as: Bible, Evangelical, Protestant, Reverend, Youth, Sunday School, Bible Study, altar call, crusade - all terms and titles God never once used. Do you go around your community, your church, even here at CH gong on for FIFTY PAGES insisting all those terms and titles are "false, wrong and blasphemy?" Nope. Why? Because you yourself consider your new argument to be silly, you yourself don't accept it, you yourself don't follow it. It's silly. And desperate.

It's similar to what you've done elsewhere. When your points are shown to be wrong, you retreat to the, "But where is THAT word or THAT action found verbatim in Scripture..... we can't say it or do it UNLESS Jesus did!" But you type that argument on the internet - something Jesus never did - proving you don't believe yourself, you don't follow your own point.

you have not be able to produce from direct unambiguous scripture any such reference

Wrong. I (and others) have VERBATIM quoted where Mary is specifically stated to be the mother of Jesus AND verbatim quoted where this very Jesus is called "GOD." Scripture is on our side, not on the side of the Arianism and Nestorianism you promoted and echoed, not on the side of the horrible heretic you specifically referenced as agreeing with you.




- Josiah





.

 

[Alithis]

the questions IS .. .. Why do you Josiah want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

 

[Josiah]

the questions IS .. .. Why do you Josiah want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

Quote me where I said anyone should call anything anything.

I defend the theology because I agree with the Bible, with the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils and with nearly all Christians: that Mary bore Jesus and that this Jesus whom she bore may correctly be called God. It's what the Bible specifically states. It's been affirmed by 3 of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. And because I denounce the two heresies you've promoted: Arianism and Nestorianism, as well as the heretic you specifically referenced (the only person you have) as one agreeing with your repudiation of these truths.

It doesn't matter if a title or term is not known to have been used by Jesus. Yes, I use words like Trinity, Bible, Protestant, Evangelical, Sunday School, Bible Study, Computer, America, Automobile, Television, Babysitter, Website, Restaurant, and indeed many many words that I used which as far as I know Jesus never once used. SO DO YOU. Even if you have NEVER uttered the word "Bible" or "Evangelical" or "Protestant" or "Website," you have uttered words and used titles that Jesus likely never did. So since you don't limit yourself to terms and words known to have been stated by Jesus, it's just silly of you to suggest others must do what you yourself do NOT do.

Now, did MATTHEW call Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes. Verbatim. Did Paul (and others) call this Jesus specifically "GOD?" Yes. Verbatim. The two truths affirmed by the title are STATED in Scripture.



.

 

[Alithis]

Quote me where I said anyone should call anything anything.

I defend the theology because I agree with the Bible, with the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils and with nearly all Christians: that Mary bore Jesus and that this Jesus whom she bore may correctly be called God. It's what the Bible specifically states. It's been affirmed by 3 of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. And because I denounce the two heresies you've promoted: Arianism and Nestorianism, as well as the heretic you specifically referenced (the only person you have) as one agreeing with your repudiation of these truths.

It doesn't matter if a title or term is not known to have been used by Jesus. Yes, I use words like Trinity, Bible, Protestant, Evangelical, Sunday School, Bible Study, Computer, America, Automobile, Television, Babysitter, Website, Restaurant, and indeed many many words that I used which as far as I know Jesus never once used. SO DO YOU. Even if you have NEVER uttered the word "Bible" or "Evangelical" or "Protestant" or "Website," you have uttered words and used titles that Jesus likely never did. So since you don't limit yourself to terms and words known to have been stated by Jesus, it's just silly of you to suggest others must do what you yourself do NOT do.

Now, did MATTHEW call Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes. Verbatim. Did Paul (and others) call this Jesus specifically "GOD?" Yes. Verbatim. The two truths affirmed by the title are STATED in Scripture.



.

i dont have to quote what you have not said .
the Question is .. why do YOU Josiah ,want mary to be called -" the mother of God . somthing the lord NEVER calls her .


your the one defending the title . so why do you want her to be called "the mother of Ggd "? when god has not seen fit to do so .

 

[Josiah]

the Question is .. why do YOU Josiah ,want mary to be called -" the mother of God . somthing the lord NEVER calls her .

Quote me where I said anyone should call anything or anyone anything.


I defend the theology because I agree with the Bible, with the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils and with nearly all Christians: that Mary bore Jesus and that this Jesus whom she bore may correctly be called God. It's what the Bible specifically states. It's been affirmed by 3 of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. And because I denounce the two heresies you've promoted: Arianism and Nestorianism, as well as the heretic you specifically referenced (the only person you have) as one agreeing with your repudiation of these truths.

It doesn't matter if a title or term is not known to have been used by Jesus. Yes, I use words like Trinity, Bible, Protestant, Evangelical, Sunday School, Bible Study, Computer, America, Automobile, Television, Babysitter, Website, Restaurant, and indeed many many words that I used which as far as I know Jesus never once used. SO DO YOU. Even if you have NEVER uttered the word "Bible" or "Evangelical" or "Protestant" or "Website," you have uttered words and used titles that Jesus likely never did. So since you don't limit yourself to terms and words known to have been stated by Jesus, it's just silly of you to suggest others must do what you yourself do NOT do.


Did MATTHEW call Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes. Verbatim.
Did Paul (and others) call this Jesus specifically "GOD?" Yes. Verbatim.
The two truths affirmed by the title are STATED in Scripture.

when god has not seen fit to do so .

Why do YOU use terms and titles that "god" has not seen fit to use? Bible.... Protestant.... Evangelical...... Sunday School.... Bible Study...... Youth Group..... Reverend...... Computer..... America...... Automobile...... Television...... Wednesday...... Website..... Football...... All words it seems God never saw fit to use, at least that we can document in Scripture. It seems you think it's wrong to use words and titles not found in Scripture, so I'm sure you don't say "United States of America".




- Josiah





.

 

[Full O Beans]

If you agree with the bible, then you will have no reason to call Mary anything but the mother of Jesus. That is true theology.

 

[Alithis]

the questions IS .. .. Why do you Josiah want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

Quote me where I said anyone should call anything or anyone anything.


I defend the theology because I agree with the Bible, with the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils and with nearly all Christians: that Mary bore Jesus and that this Jesus whom she bore may correctly be called God. It's what the Bible specifically states. It's been affirmed by 3 of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. And because I denounce the two heresies you've promoted: Arianism and Nestorianism, as well as the heretic you specifically referenced (the only person you have) as one agreeing with your repudiation of these truths.

It doesn't matter if a title or term is not known to have been used by Jesus. Yes, I use words like Trinity, Bible, Protestant, Evangelical, Sunday School, Bible Study, Computer, America, Automobile, Television, Babysitter, Website, Restaurant, and indeed many many words that I used which as far as I know Jesus never once used. SO DO YOU. Even if you have NEVER uttered the word "Bible" or "Evangelical" or "Protestant" or "Website," you have uttered words and used titles that Jesus likely never did. So since you don't limit yourself to terms and words known to have been stated by Jesus, it's just silly of you to suggest others must do what you yourself do NOT do.


Did MATTHEW call Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes. Verbatim.
Did Paul (and others) call this Jesus specifically "GOD?" Yes. Verbatim.
The two truths affirmed by the title are STATED in Scripture.






Why do YOU use terms and titles that "god" has not seen fit to use? Bible.... Protestant.... Evangelical...... Sunday School.... Bible Study...... Youth Group..... Reverend...... Computer..... America...... Automobile...... Television...... Wednesday...... Website..... Football...... All words it seems God never saw fit to use, at least that we can document in Scripture. It seems you think it's wrong to use words and titles not found in Scripture, so I'm sure you don't say "United States of America".




- Josiah





.

umm- have you not defended the calling Mary "the mother of God "for most of this thread ..or are we all reading some imaginary posts ?

as you have been consistent and even aggressive in the defense of the title .. we can only assume you WANT her to be called that ,.even though the lord never does .

please clarify as your stance is now confusing -.. are you now saying you DON'T want Mary to be called "the mother of God " ?- that would be wonderful as it would align with the scripture which Also doesn't do so.

if however you desire to persist in the defense of the title that God has never given her . then address the question ..
.. Why do you Josiah want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

 

[psalms 91]

umm- have you not defended the calling Mary "the mother of God "for most of this thread ..or are we all reading some imaginary posts ?

as you have been consistent and even aggressive in the defense of the title .. we can only assume you WANT her to be called that ,.even though the lord never does .

please clarify as your stance is now confusing -.. are you now saying you DON'T want Mary to be called "the mother of God " ?- that would be wonderful as it would align with the scripture which Also doesn't do so.

if however you desire to persist in the defense of the title that God has never given her . then address the question ..
.. Why do you Josiah want her to be called "the mother of God " -something The Lord never called her?

Here here, this is far less combative than what was done to me so I think he should answer