Why was Mary necessary?

[visionary]

I think it is a simple.. please clarify God when speaking about Mary and her relationship.

 

[TurtleHare]

Titus 3:13 Do everything you can to help Zena the lawyer and Apollos on their way and see that they have everything they need.

I am looking for "God" in this verse.

That was a good catch and is showing you are checking scripture.

 

[TurtleHare]

I think it is a simple.. please clarify God when speaking about Mary and her relationship.

Is Jesus always God?

 

[Josiah]

.


Matthew 1:18, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His MOTHER, Mary, was....." So, what precisely, verbatim, exactly is Mary called here?


Titus 2:13, "While we wait for the glorious appearing of our GOD and Savior - Jesus Christ." So, Jesus (the one whom Mary bore.... the one who came from the womb of Mary.... is verbatim, precisely, exactly called what?


For some 70 pages (!!!), some of us have argued that it is biblical and permissible to state that Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God, and thus the title is theologically and biblically correct - Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13 are not wrong, are not heretical, are not "false, wrong and blasphemy" as several "Evangelicals" here at CH have insisted (for SEVENTY PAGES!!!!).

Now, we've agreed that several "titles" that do not exist, that have never existed, that no one on the planet Earth professes or believes, that no one besides a few "Evangelicals" here at CH have even had the WILD imagination to invent.... "titles" such as "Mary - Mother of the Triinity" or "Mary - the God of God" or "Mary - The Source of God" or "Mary - Mother of the Father" - of course, those absurd, unthinkable "titles" that NO ONE ON THE PLANET believes or affirms or states (no one but a few here even has THOUGHT of them) - sure, those are "false, wrong and blasphemy" but then no one here is discussing those titles for one very simple reason: they don't exist. They never have. They spring from the wild, incredible imagination of a few "Evangelicals" here at CH.

But we've found, the rejection of Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13 springs from their affirmation of Nestorianism - one of the worse, most destructive heresies in the history of Christianity. It seems these "Evangelicals" are Nestorians, promoters of this ancient, condemned, horrible, destructive heresy. They reject the title for EXACTLY the same reasons Nestorius did - even verbatim echoing his heretical words. I think that shocked us all. I did not know that full-brown, radical Nestorianism still existed - much less seems popular in modern American "Evangelicalism." I think several of us here at CH were shocked to see this!!!! And when we repeatedly pointed out the heresy, what we got was either "I don't care" or okay, I'm promoting a universally condemned horrible heresy that nearly destroyed Christianity.




Thank you.



- Josiah




.

See Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13. What titles do SCRIPTURE verbatim, exactly, precisely give to Mary and Jesus, her son? Is it "MOTHER" and "GOD?"


Some here think that Scripture here is not "false, wrong and blasphemy" as some Evangelicals have insisted. Some here think these verses are actually correct. But the rebellion to these verses by some "Evangelicals" here flows from their embrace, their promotion, their advocacy, their defense, their echoing of Nestorianism - one of the worse, most destructive heresies in all of Christian history. They choose to stand with Nestorius, to verbatim echo his words (applying them EXACTLY to the indentical issue HE did!), resurrecting this ancient horrible heresy. Others of us stand with Matthew 1:18, Titus 2:13, with the whole witness of Scripture, and with the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils in affirming the two inseparable natures of Christ against Nestorianism (that nearly destroyed Christianity).



Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

Josiah, it looks like in this post above that you're showing how "Mary, Mother of God" isn't merging Mary but is actually two separate biblical statements. One concerning Mary and the other concerning God. Both being true. Correct?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Blessed Virgin Mary is necessary because there is no incarnation without a mother for God incarnate.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, it looks like in this post above that you're showing how "Mary, Mother of God" isn't merging Mary but is actually two separate biblical statements. One concerning Mary and the other concerning God. Both being true. Correct?

Matthew 1:18 verbatim uses the title "MOTHER" to Mary, specifically, the MOTHER of Jesus.
Titus 2:13 verbatim uses the title "GOD" to refer to Jesus - the one whom Mary bore, the one to whom Mary is the "mother."

Ergo, Mary is the "Mother" of "God."

Of course, Mary is not the mother of the Trinity or mother of the Father. And Mary is not the God of God or the source of God. Or any of the absurd, silly, unimaginable things that some "Evangelicals" here at CH seem to think is the title (I DO wonder if they've READ it). We cannot discuss those absurd titles for one simple reason: they don't exist, NO ONE ON THE PLANET believes or affirms or proclaims such absurdity (except for a few "Evangelicals" here at CH).

Now, some think this very ancient title (that is a proclaimation of an Ecumenical Council that Protestants generally ACCEPT!) can be confusing and can be misunderstood - a point that's been admitted (I did on PAGE ONE and many, many times since). ALL things have the capacity to be misunderstood or misapplied. But that's never been the issue or the debate (THAT point was agreed to way back on page one - and over, over, over again since page one). The insistence rather is that the proclaimation of these two verses of Scripture is "false, wrong and blasphemy." And why? Because these "Evangelicals" have echoed (verbatim) the words of that horrible heretic, Nestorius. They have passionately promoted, advocated and defended Nestorianism - one of the worse, most destructive heresies in the history of Christianity. The sole issue that has mandated that I stay on this topic is this: Not permitting this horrible, ecumenically condemned heresy of Nestorianism to be defended, advanced, echoed. Frankly, while I know that some modern "Evangelicals" lean toward this heresy, I had no idea it was being taught in all it's horrible fullness - not innocently but willingly and knowingly. I find that shocking and very, very disturbing. This heresy nearly destroyed Christianity in the 4th and 5th Centuries - and it seems it's being resurrected, knowingly and willingly. Very disturbing. Very scary.





.

 

[Lamb]

So that's a yes?

 

[Josiah]

So that's a yes?

It's a "yes" to Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13.... a "yes" to the Creeds and the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.... a "yes" to the two inseparable natures of Christ..... and thus to the ancient title proclaimed by the Ecumenical Council nearly all Protestants accept. It's a "no" to the heretic Nestorius and to the heresy Nestorianism and thus to the "Evangelicals" here who have been echoing, promoting, advocating and defending Nestorianism.



.

 

[TurtleHare]

I think it is a simple.. please clarify God when speaking about Mary and her relationship.

Do you mean something like "Mary, Mother of God (Jesus second person of the Godhead)" and would that fulfill your request satisfactorily?

 

[Alithis]

Visionary.. In light of so many claims and the forceful nature of defense of the idolisation of this imposed figurine .
It would be good to point out that the rcc and the lutheran are amoung the few denominations who still adhere to the false titles given to this renamed asteroth and moongodess .
But to give a refreshed view of the reasons for opposing the erroneous title it is good to observe some of the other numerous errors (and blaspemies)which have arisen due to the use of the erroneous title.

This article i found is a fairly good presentation on the topic.

https://carm.org/is-mary-the-mother-of-god.

I invite all to read it..i will not stay to debate it.
Enjoy.

 

[Lamb]

When was Jesus not God? It's been asked before and no one has responded. I'm curious.

 

[psalms 91]

Im curious as well, does God get humgary? Does God die?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Im curious as well, does God get humgary? Does God die?

Jesus is God and he hungered, thirsted, and died. He also rose from the dead because death was unable to contain him.

 

[psalms 91]

Jesus is God and he hungered, thirsted, and died. He also rose from the dead because death was unable to contain him.

Yet in the physical He was human and did all these things and we know that God is immortal and never dies and He is spirit so hard to imagine Him hungary

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yet in the physical He was human and did all these things and we know that God is immortal and never dies and He is spirit so hard to imagine Him hungary

I'm not so sure how "in the physical" applies except to notice that the Lord Jesus Christ is a human being as well as God.

 

[TurtleHare]

Yet in the physical He was human and did all these things and we know that God is immortal and never dies and He is spirit so hard to imagine Him hungary

Jesus is God in the flesh.

 

[Josiah]

https://carm.org/is-mary-the-mother-of-god

.


Here's what CARM has to say about the Nestorianism being parroted, echoed, promoted and advocated by some "Evangelicals" here at CH: https://carm.org/nestorianism And note, Matt DISAGREES with the "Evangelicals" here in that Matt does not deny the two INSEPARABLE natures of Christ, he only indicates that the title can be (and he CLAIMS is) misunderstood and misapplied - a point yielded 72 pages ago, way back on PAGE ONE and repeated over and over and over and over. LIKE ALL THINGS, like all labels, like all titles, this one can be misunderstood and misuesed. But that doesn't make it "false, wrong and blasphemy" and that certainly doesn't make Nestorius correct rather than wrong, it doesn't make Scripture "false, wrong and blasphemous" rather than Nestorius (whom all Christianity has declared as false, wrong and blasphemous for some 1600 years). Friend: it's Nestorianism (which you have parroted, echoed, defended, promoted) that is "false, wrong and blasphemous" NOT Matthew 1:18, Titus 2:13, the First and Third and Fifth ECUMENICAL Councils.


Also see....

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

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorianism

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

http://www.gotquestions.org/Nestorianism.html

It would be good to point out that the rcc and the lutheran are amoung the few denominations who still adhere to the false titles

Wrong. Virtually ALL Christian denominations condemn Nestorianism, NOT just Lutherans and Catholics! Virtually ALL historic churches embrace the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils that CONDEMN Nestorius (echoed verbatim by some "Evangelicals" in this thread) and Nestorianism (promoted and advocated by some "Evangelicals" in this thread).



Matthew 1:18 uses WHAT label for Mary? Is the Bible false to use this label for Mary?
Titus 2:13 uses WHAT label for the one whom Mary bore, to whom Mary is the mother? Is the Bible false to use this label to refer to the one Mary bore?

When you deny these two labels, you are declaring these two verses to be false - or simply standing with one of the worse, most horrific, most destructive heretics in the history of Christianity who modified them since Scripture disagrees with his heresy.




A blessed Holy Week to all....


- Josiah





.

 

[Alithis]

Im curious as well, does God get hungary? Does God die?

we know he cannot die ,or hunger for he is Life ..
but can the manifestation of him in the flesh do so.. yes and he did and also rose again from the dead

it is interesting .-.who was the devil tempting with turning stones to bread - God ?
or a hungry man who had fasted for 40 days in the desert ... ? one is the manifestation of the other .

to whom did Moses speak in the desert ..to a bush that burned or to GOD ? yet he spoke to a burning bush .. so was the Bush God ? or just the manifestation of the presence of God ?
to whom did abraham speak when three men came to him and yet he referred the them plural as one .. "Lord " were the three men God? or the manifestation of God to Abraham .

in all cases, one is the manifestation of the other .

and in all the messengers god sent they would not listen so then he sent his only uniquely begotten son .. and they would not hear him either

https://carm.org/is-mary-the-mother-of-god. ? the article encapsulates in a handy way the error the use of the title has lead many into .showing also the outrageous claims made by some popes of the years .
mostly the title is only maintained according to the rcc and lutheran -who barely differ at all.

some do not like thier precious little goddess being put down .but i certainly wil never elevate that false goddess as you know .the lord does not "share" his glory with any other .

(as for the other -i'm sure it's directed at me as that spirit strives vehemently to maintain false elevation of that false goddess BUt -"This message is hidden ...." is all i see now ... )

 

[psalms 91]

we know he cannot die ,or hunger for he is Life ..
but can the manifestation of him in the flesh do so.. yes and he did and also rose again from the dead

it is interesting .-.who was the devil tempting with turning stones to bread - God ?
or a hungry man who had fasted for 40 days in the desert ... ? one is the manifestation of the other .

to whom did Moses speak in the desert ..to a bush that burned or to GOD ? yet he spoke to a burning bush .. so was the Bush God ? or just the manifestation of the presence of God ?
to whom did abraham speak when three men came to him and yet he referred the them plural as one .. "Lord " were the three men God? or the manifestation of God to Abraham .

in all cases, one is the manifestation of the other .

and in all the messengers god sent they would not listen so then he sent his only uniquely begotten son .. and they would not hear him either

https://carm.org/is-mary-the-mother-of-god. ? the article encapsulates in a handy way the error the use of the title has lead many into .showing also the outrageous claims made by some popes of the years .
mostly the title is only maintained according to the rcc and lutheran -who barely differ at all.

some do not like thier precious little goddess being put down .but i certainly wil never elevate that false goddess as you know .the lord does not "share" his glory with any other .

(as for the other -i'm sure it's directed at me as that spirit strives vehemently to maintain false elevation of that false goddess BUt -"This message is hidden ...." is all i see now ... )

Amen