Why was Mary necessary?

[Josiah]

I think if Mary was given the title "Mother of the Son of God".. it would clarify a lot.

1. It was agreed - LONG, LONG, LONG ago..... already on page one - that the ancient, ecumenical title CAN be misunderstood. That's never been an issue of debate or disagreement.

2. Yes.... there are times when SCRIPTURE (correctly) gives Jesus the title of "Son of God." But it ALSO (correctly) gives Jesus the title of "God."

3. The point of embracing the ancient, ecumenical title (Mary - Mother of God) - which comes from an ecumenical council Protestants usually embrace - is to correct Nestorianism. The very heresy some here at CH have verbatim echoed, parroted, promoted, defended and advocated. The title is makes it clear: JESUS (the one whom Mary bore..... that flesh-and-blood one she bore....) IS God. Scripture (and the ancient title, and the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils) are CORRECT. It's Nestorius and Nestorians who are false, wrong and blasphemous. Of course, Nestorians insists its the other way around.



A blessed Easter to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think if Mary was given the title "Mother of the Son of God".. it would clarify a lot.

Mary is the mother of God and the title was given to her in connection with the Church's teaching about the incarnation at the council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.

 

[Alithis]

I think if Mary was given the title "Mother of the Son of God".. it would clarify a lot.

..

 

[visionary]

I think if Mary was given the title "Mother of the Son of God" it would clarify a lot... the current controversy is all about "Mary, Mother of God" like she is the mother of God, the Father. If the church fathers had changed the wording long time ago, and even now... it would solve a lot. Right now, the hardline that she is the "Mother of God" lends itself to placing her above God Himself.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think if Mary was given the title "Mother of the Son of God" it would clarify a lot... the current controversy is all about "Mary, Mother of God" like she is the mother of God, the Father. If the church fathers had changed the wording long time ago, and even now... it would solve a lot. Right now, the hardline that she is the "Mother of God" lends itself to placing her above God Himself.

It is only in a heretical turn of mind that "mother of God" implies "mother of the Holy Trinity" but in a faithful mind the title tells the story of the incarnation that God became man thus being true God and true man in one person.

 

[visionary]

It is only in a heretical turn of mind that "mother of God" implies "mother of the Holy Trinity" but in a faithful mins the title tells the story of the incarnation that God became man thus being true God and true man in one person.

Then we both agree... Mary is just the average human in this story... with an amazing adventure with God.

 

[Josiah]

I think if Mary was given the title "Mother of the Son of God" it would clarify a lot... the current controversy is all about "Mary, Mother of God" like she is the mother of God, the Father. If the church fathers had changed the wording long time ago, and even now... it would solve a lot. Right now, the hardline that she is the "Mother of God" lends itself to placing her above God Himself.

There is no title of "Mary - Mother of the Father" That would be heresy. But NO ONE has EVER - not ever - professed or embraced or used that title. It doesn't exist, it never has - so it cannot be rebuked.
There is no title of "Mary - Mother of the Trinity" That would be heresy. But NO ONE has EVER - not ever - professed or embraced or used that title. It doesn't exist, it never has - so it cannot be rebuked.


The title is two things: Matthew 1:18 that proclaims that the Mother of Jesus is MARY, and Titus 2:13 that proclaims that this Jesus - to whom Mary is mother - is righly and correctly called "GOD." Some here have denounced these two Scriptures as "false, wrong and blasphemy" and instead have parroted, echoed, verbatim stated the horrible, destructive heresy of Nestorianism to deny that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus is correctly called "GOD" in Titus 2:13, in the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.

It is my contention that Matthew 1:18 and Title 2:13.... the First and Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils (which Protestants usually accept!) are CORRECT. It's Nestorianism that is "false, wrong and blasphemy." The "Evangelicals" here have it backwards.

No, Jesus is not above the Father - although He is EQUAL and INSEPARABLE with the Father (and the Spirit). To deny this is to denounce Jesus and of course side with several ancient heresies.

AGAIN, Visionary, NO ONE - not one - has disputed that the title (like all things!) is capable of being misunderstood. THAT has NEVER been disputed. I stated that way back on page one.... all the other traditional Christians here have posted that, too - a long, long, long time ago - many, many pages ago. THAT is not the issue - and NEVER has been. The issue is whether Matthew 1:18 and Titus 2:13 and the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils are "false, wrong and blasphemy" as charged (and Nestorius is correct as claimed) OR if it actually is Nestorius who is "false, wrong and blasphemy" and Matthew 1:18, Titus 2:13, those 3 Ecumenical Councils and the title are correct.




A blessed Easter to you and yours.


- Josiah

 

[Alithis]

I think if Mary was given the title "Mother of the Son of God" it would clarify a lot... the current controversy is all about "Mary, Mother of God" like she is the mother of God, the Father. If the church fathers had changed the wording long time ago, and even now... it would solve a lot. Right now, the hardline that she is the "Mother of God" lends itself to placing her above God Himself.

Yup ,thats a point this simple article on carm.org (which saves a lot of typing haha ..) points out .. they, (the rcc and lutheran ) dont make any honest effort to highlight that point .. they allow the erroneous illusion to remain at the forefront .. and then as we see the quotes from the rcc teachings we see that the title is used as a basis for many other outrageous claims by popes and others which are blatant in falsehood . all strengthened by the misrepresented use of the false title .
if the false representation of the term is removed then with it crumbles the many other more blatant lies in regard to mary . so they hold fast to this one misrepresentation and allow one misconstrued title to reinforce blatant error.. SOo much dishonesty cannot be of God . they take this bit of scripture and that bit of tradition mash it together and say ..this is authoritative over and above the word of God .. and so add dishonesty to dishonesty and remain alienated from truth .

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

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then we both agree... Mary is just the average human in this story... with an amazing adventure with God.

No, Blessed Mary is far from average and far from being unremarkable because God chose her to be mother of the Lord Jesus Christ and she accepted God's choice.

 

[visionary]

No, Blessed Mary is far from average and far from being unremarkable because God chose her to be mother of the Lord Jesus Christ and she accepted God's choice.

And if you were female and offered the same opportunity, you wouldn't?

 

[MoreCoffee]

And if you were female and offered the same opportunity, you wouldn't?

I am not a female and no such opportunity could be offered to me because I was born many centuries too late to play that role in God's purposes nor am I of the right lineage nor was I prepared as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. "What If" is a fantasy in this case.

 

[visionary]

I am not a female and no such opportunity could be offered to me because I was born many centuries too late to play that role in God's purposes nor am I of the right lineage nor was I prepared as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. "What If" is a fantasy in this case.

"nor was I prepare"... is right. Mary was not prepared. But when the opportunity came, she was willing.

 

[MoreCoffee]

"nor was I prepared"... is right. Mary was not prepared. But when the opportunity came, she was willing.

The Blessed Virgin Mary most certainly was prepared for her role. The prophets spoke of her for centuries and the priests and kings of Israel anticipated her coming as the daughter of Zion through whom the fulfilment of the promises would come in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Alithis]

The Blessed Virgin Mary most certainly was prepared for her role. The prophets spoke of her for centuries and the priests and kings of Israel anticipated her coming as the daughter of Zion through whom the fulfilment of the promises would come in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

lol that desperate attempt to elevate the idol again .one thing that has been establish clearly is she had absolutely no attributes making her any different then any other girl her age save that she was betrothed to joseph who was of the line of David . any virgin who happened to be betrothed to him would have been chosen .. The scriptures give NO other attribute to her .

the scripture does not call her

" the mother of God " (no one can produce that title from scripture they just desperately accuse lost of sidelining distracting arguments to avoid admitting the title isn't there )
it does not call her
a co mediator
it does not call her
the queen of heaven
it does not call her
a perpetual virgin
it does not sate
she was born sinless ..

so who is the being the rcc speaks of ? because it is not the mary of the bible .. a normal young virgin woman of norma israeli decent who happens to be engaged to marry Joseph . nothing less, nothng more.

 

[MoreCoffee]

lol that desperate attempt to elevate the idol again .
...

Blessed Mary is no idol and that you say that she is reflects poorly upon the kind of religion that your posts represent.

 

[psalms 91]

Mary no, what some try to turn her into yes

 

[MoreCoffee]

Mary no, what some try to turn her into yes

Seems that the ones most opposed are the ones most guilty of making an idol of Blessed Mary so that they can rail against her or rail against those who rightly and justly honour her as the mother of the Lord.

 

[psalms 91]

I havent seen that, only coming against those who wish to confuse and hide the real issue

 

[MoreCoffee]

I havent seen that, only coming against those who wish to confuse and hide the real issue

Not one post written by those who acknowledge Blessed Mary as the mother of God has set up an idol of her in thought, word, or deed.

 

[TurtleHare]

We've heard a lot of claims that those people exist, yet haven't seen any proof here on Christianity Haven now have we, so show us your proof that there are people here are turning Mary into an idol because we're all curious.