Why was Mary necessary?

[Alithis]

Mary provided the physical form in which God dwelt as His only Begotten Son.

we all know this but we do not all admit it .though even here i wil add correction ..for it is clearly written .. the child is" OF the Holy Ghost" .. not at any time "of " mary .just clarifying that . it is what is written it is not based on what is NOT written .
mary did not "provide " the physical form but is merely the vessel used to with which to deliver him into the world .

saying she is the mother of god is like saying the burning bush brought forth God in the desert . after all,the burning bush was also a manifestation of God ..in the form of the burning bush .JEsus is the manifestation of God in the form of a man of flesh and blood . mary was used to birth forth this flesh into the world . but the person of the word of God was with God before the foundation of the world he did not originate with mary -she is Not the mother of God .

further more there is absolutely NOTHING to be gained by saying she is unless one is using that title to sure up other false doctrines . -which happens to be the case with rome

 

[Alithis]

Actually, Bill, I've been posting (WAY, WAY too much, lol) on the 'net since I was 10 years old. I've discussed this topic OFTEN - both when I was a Catholic and now as a Protestant. THIS is the first thread where I've seen the proclaimations of this title challenged and declared as wrong. I'm kind of shocked to see Arianism so clearly proclaimed (and even defended). Now, I've met folks who have argued that the title is confusing to some (not sure I disagree there) but this is the first time (out of DOZENS) where some have said that it's WRONG: Mary did not bore Jesus and/or Jesus may not rightly be called God.

SOME have protested the PROCLAIMATION of the title because they insist Jesus is not God (or at least wasn't while in His State of Humilitation). Yes (please dobn't take offense; it's just fact): that's heresy, condemned at the Council of Nicea and the Council of Chaladom, condemned by EVERY denomination on the planet known to me except for the LDS and Oneness Pentecostalism. And while I've heard some deny the virgil birth of Jesus, I've never encountered anyone who denied that Mary bore Him. To say the proclaimations are WRONG is to insists the two things this title proclaims are wrong (well, at least one of them), they thus need to document that 2000 years of universal Chrsitianity is wrong, the Bible is wrong (Luke 2:1-7 and/or John 20:28 for example) because Jesus may NOT be rightly called God and/or Mary did NOT bore Him.

But some don't seem to be actually saying THIS title is wrong (some I'm not TOO sure even know what title we're discussing). RATHER they are protesting OTHER titles that THEY have invented as substitute strawmen. For example, "Mary - the Creator of the Creator" or "Mary - the Source of the Trinity.' SOME seem to be protesting THOSE "titles" in lieu of, in place of, in stead of the one we're actually talking about. But what's frustrating there is NO ONE is remotely teaching that, NO ONE as EVER used those titles, NO ONE on the face of the planet believes those silly and obviously wrong things. But they seem to go on and on and on rebuking THOSE non-existent, phantom, strawmen. They aren't saying ANYTHING AT ALL about the title at issue but about those strawmen they've created out of their OWN minds and hearts (especially absurd ones).


Thank you, Bill.


- Josiah

its all hoo haa ..you still haven't encountered anyone who said she bore him not into the world .and you still have not provided the scripture that states she is the mother of God , because she isn't .
she is the mother of the flesh and blood manifestation in whom the Godhead dwelt. because the Godhead dwelt in the flesh does not mean she was the mother of the GOd because the Godhead is eternal and has no beginning and no end .the godhead did not originate at mary .the flesh man does .

if she was to be given a title so huge that it invokes the worship of the masses ,do you not think God would have seen fit to at least mention it in his word .. yet he Does NOT . for even the false use of it has lead hundreds of millions into the error of outright idolatry . and God does not lead people in idolatry .
you may have left the rcc but now you need to get the rcc out of you

 

[Josiah]

When you can show that Scripture is wrong and Mary did NOT bore Jesus..... when you can show that Scripture is wrong and Jesus may not rightly be called "God".... then you'll show that the title is wrong. Until then, we are all left wondering why you reject what Scripture specifically states: Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may rightly be called God.

The Title proclaims and affirms two (and only) two things:
Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7, etc.)
This Jesus may righly be called God (John 20:28, etc.)
To declare these things wrong is to declare Scripture as wrong.





.

 

[TurtleHare]

Your postings indicate that you are willing to say Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

But who is Jesus? Who is this man? He's not God to you apparently if you think you can split him apart as you do because then you have that Nestorian heresy. You have read up on that heresy I assume since it's been pointed out to you more than one time by Josiah? I really had no idea that people still believed in such heresies in today's age especially when we have scripture that corrects those false beliefs.

its all hoo haa ..you still haven't encountered anyone who said she bore him not into the world .and you still have not provided the scripture that states she is the mother of God , because she isn't .
she is the mother of the flesh and blood manifestation in whom the Godhead dwelt. because the Godhead dwelt in the flesh does not mean she was the mother of the GOd because the Godhead is eternal and has no beginning and no end .the godhead did not originate at mary .the flesh man does .

if she was to be given a title so huge that it invokes the worship of the masses ,do you not think God would have seen fit to at least mention it in his word .. yet he Does NOT . for even the false use of it has lead hundreds of millions into the error of outright idolatry . and God does not lead people in idolatry .
you may have left the rcc but now you need to get the rcc out of you

 

[Alithis]

Your postings indicate that you are willing to say Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

But who is Jesus? Who is this man? He's not God to you apparently if you think you can split him apart as you do because then you have that Nestorian heresy. You have read up on that heresy I assume since it's been pointed out to you more than one time by Josiah? I really had no idea that people still believed in such heresies in today's age especially when we have scripture that corrects those false beliefs.

im not willing to say she is the mother of JEsus .. I DO, categorically say, she is the mother of the flesh and blood MAN whose name is JEsus .

your trying to make it appear as if i am speaking in opposition to scripture .even falsely accusing me of heresy ? i mean reeeeally! .. is scripture itself heresy now ? you know i jest to ask.
lets see what scripture says in reply the very question you have just asked ....



When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.
Why did the lord jesus commend peter if peter was wrong ?
so we see she is the mother of the son .. the word became FLESH .. she is the mother of that flesh . not the mother of God .

sooner or later your all going to have to accept that the word of God ,written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit , NEVER endows ANY such title to her .
and no matter how long any one argues it it is not going to suddenly appear in scripture .

the mary of the bible - is not the mother of God
- is not born divine (without sin)
- is not a perpetual virgin
- is not the queen of heaven
- is not a co mediator
- is not the same person as the mary of the RCC which claims she is all the above in , when the scriptures never do so .

 

[MoreCoffee]

This thread appears to be in a loop. Some teaching heresy and many teaching orthodox Christian belief and all going in circles. Those teaching heresy appear unwilling to reconsider. The orthodox Christian teaching is this, that Mary cecame the mother of God when God became a man, the man Jesus Christ.

 

[Alithis]

This thread appears to be in a loop. Some teaching heresy and many teaching orthodox Christian belief and all going in circles. Those teaching heresy appear unwilling to reconsider. The orthodox Christian teaching is this, that Mary cecame the mother of God when God became a man, the man Jesus Christ.

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being..... "

bemusing to say the least .. you imply the scripture is heresy ? that the verse posted above is heresy ?
-and you impose "orthodox teaching " as more authoritative then scripture .. and you do so because you cannot display where scripture gives her that title .. because scripture does not .

sooner or later your all going to have to accept that the word of God ,written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit , NEVER endows ANY such title to her .
and no matter how long any one argues it it is not going to suddenly appear in scripture .

the mary of the bible - is not the mother of God - she is the mother of the flesh"man" .
- is not born divine (without sin)
- is not a perpetual virgin
- is not the queen of heaven
- is not a co mediator
- is not the same person as the mary of the RCC which claims she is all the above in , when the scriptures never do so .

 

[George]

im not willing to say she is the mother of JEsus .. I DO, categorically say, she is the mother of the flesh and blood MAN whose name is JEsus .

your trying to make it appear as if i am speaking in opposition to scripture .even falsely accusing me of heresy ? i mean reeeeally! .. is scripture itself heresy now ? you know i jest to ask.
lets see what scripture says in reply the very question you have just asked ....



When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.
Why did the lord jesus commend peter if peter was wrong ?
so we see she is the mother of the son .. the word became FLESH .. she is the mother of that flesh . not the mother of God .

sooner or later your all going to have to accept that the word of God ,written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit , NEVER endows ANY such title to her .
and no matter how long any one argues it it is not going to suddenly appear in scripture .

the mary of the bible - is not the mother of God
- is not born divine (without sin)
- is not a perpetual virgin
- is not the queen of heaven
- is not a co mediator
- is not the same person as the mary of the RCC which claims she is all the above in , when the scriptures never do so .

Lol you were given Scripture, and you ended up saying more lies.

 

[Alithis]

When you can show that Scripture is wrong and Mary did NOT bore Jesus..... when you can show that Scripture is wrong and Jesus may not rightly be called "God".... then you'll show that the title is wrong. Until then, we are all left wondering why you reject what Scripture specifically states: Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may rightly be called God.

The Title proclaims and affirms two (and only) two things:
Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7, etc.)
This Jesus may righly be called God (John 20:28, etc.)
To declare these things wrong is to declare Scripture as wrong.





.

again.. did you read the post your replying to here ?

 

[Alithis]

Lol you were given Scripture, and you ended up saying more lies.

please

here is what i said " m not willing to say she is the mother of JEsus .. I DO, categorically say, she is the mother of the flesh and blood MAN whose name is JEsus .

your trying to make it appear as if i am speaking in opposition to scripture .even falsely accusing me of heresy ? i mean reeeeally! .. is scripture itself heresy now ? you know i jest to ask.
lets see what scripture says in reply the very question you have just asked ....



When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.
Why did the lord jesus commend peter if peter was wrong ?
so we see she is the mother of the son .. the word became FLESH .. she is the mother of that flesh . not the mother of God .

sooner or later your all going to have to accept that the word of God ,written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit , NEVER endows ANY such title to her .
and no matter how long any one argues it it is not going to suddenly appear in scripture .

the mary of the bible - is not the mother of God
- is not born divine (without sin)
- is not a perpetual virgin
- is not the queen of heaven
- is not a co mediator
- is not the same person as the mary of the RCC which claims she is all the above in , when the scriptures never do so ."

now go ahead .. in the name of the lord JESUS ..underline the lie .

 

[George]

Seeing as you brought up that verse, let's also ask this:

“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

Would you say that because this is said, was Christ man or God on Earth, or both?

Not avoiding your question, just typing out a quick reply to this point that I want to bring up.

And heads up, that wasn't the Scripture that you called a lie.

 

[Josiah]

again.. did you read the post your replying to here ?

I'm not much regarding the diversions, the evasions. The title affirms two and only two things: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may rightly be called God. Scripture affirms both of these (See Luke 2:1-7 and John 20:28 for starters). Thus, BOTH of the affirmations of the Bible are specifically biblical. So, if you declare the title wrong, ergo you declare one or both of the things it proclaims/affirms as wrong (and Scripture wrong that affirms both). You can dance, avoid, evade, divert, hijack all day long, but that remains the issue: You declared the title wrong AND THUS one or both the things it proclaims as wrong. You may have a problem with Mary bearing Jesus (thus being the mother of Jesus) - Luke 2:1-7, thus declaring the Bible to be wrong about that. And/or you may have a problem with Jesus being called specifically GOD (John 20:28 for example) and thus Scripture wrong there. But frankly, you don't seem to be addressing the title AT ALL.... just a lot of diversions. And I think your diversions are the really disturbing part - delving into Arianism, Nestorianism, denying not only Scripture but aligning with some ecumenically condemned heresies. I've read dozens of threads on this title, since I was 10 years old... but THIS is the first thread I've seen where the rejection of what Scripture states flows from an embrace instead of these ancient heresies that I thought all Christians rejected.

 

[Alithis]

Seeing as you brought up that verse, let's also ask this:



Would you say that because this is said, was Christ man or God on Earth, or both?

Not avoiding your question, just typing out a quick reply to this point that I want to bring up.

And heads up, that wasn't the Scripture that you called a lie.

i haven't called any scripture a lie ,i HAve SAID " I absolutely agree with EVERYTHING the scripture says about the lord JESUS .. Gods word is truth

what the scripture does NOT say ..is that mary is the mother of God .. its not in there , nothing , nada ,zip , zero . you have to play word games make assumptions and add it ..
and why, to what end ?

 

[Alithis]

I'm not much regarding the diversions, the evasions. The title affirms two and only two things: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may rightly be called God. Scripture affirms both of these (See Luke 2:1-7 and John 20:28 for starters). Thus, BOTH of the affirmations of the Bible are specifically biblical. So, if you declare the title wrong, ergo you declare one or both of the things it proclaims/affirms as wrong (and Scripture wrong that affirms both). You can dance, avoid, evade, divert, hijack all day long, but that remains the issue: You declared the title wrong AND THUS one or both the things it proclaims as wrong. You may have a problem with Mary bearing Jesus (thus being the mother of Jesus) - Luke 2:1-7, thus declaring the Bible to be wrong about that. And/or you may have a problem with Jesus being called specifically GOD (John 20:28 for example) and thus Scripture wrong there. But frankly, you don't seem to be addressing the title AT ALL.... just a lot of diversions. And I think your diversions are the really disturbing part - delving into Arianism, Nestorianism, denying not only Scripture but aligning with some ecumenically condemned heresies. I've read dozens of threads on this title, since I was 10 years old... but THIS is the first thread I've seen where the rejection of what Scripture states flows from an embrace instead of these ancient heresies that I thought all Christians rejected.

the title afirms nothing .the title is not from the bible - please state which scripture i have denied ? perhaps your alluding to the one that says mary is the mother of God ? oh wait ..it cant be that one ..it doesnt exist .

 

[psalms 91]

the title afirms nothing .the title is not from the bible - please state which scripture i have denied ? perhaps your alluding to the one that says mary is the mother of God ? oh wait ..it cant be that one ..it doesnt exist .

Exactly, seems like some twisting going on here

 

[Alithis]

Exactly, seems like some twisting going on here

to sound harsh bill .... i find it telling when the accusations and insults start to fly .. its easy to get emotional ..when i do i have to beware of doing sarcastic Digs .. been guilty of that too often when the emotions fly high haha . but i get back to the solid foundation of the scripture and plant my feet firmly there ..we wont stray when we do so.

i heard a man im acquainted with speak on what the lord showed him about the many variances of denominations .. he said the lord showed him a building of paper and theory and it had strings holding it upwards and it hung from the strings and the strings were attached to singular verses ..and these singular verses were being used to hold that building up . so he wiped the building out and he said here is my word ... build ON it so that it alone is your foundation .. the church is not the foundation held up by preferred theologies .. the church is built upon the word of god .. the same word of god by whom all things were created .everything is built upon him and that which is not built upon him will fall .if the word itself ,who is the lord JESUS ,..the ROCK of our salvation that can never be moved is not our foundation then it is upon sinking sand we have built .

 

[TurtleHare]

i haven't called any scripture a lie ,i HAve SAID " I absolutely agree with EVERYTHING the scripture says about the lord JESUS .. Gods word is truth

what the scripture does NOT say ..is that mary is the mother of God .. its not in there , nothing , nada ,zip , zero . you have to play word games make assumptions and add it ..
and why, to what end ?

Do you believe Jesus is always God? Yes or No.

If no, when was Jesus never God? When did He become God according to your beliefs?

Answering these questions will speak volumes.

 

[Josiah]

please state which scripture i have denied ?

Since you deny, reject and protest the things this title affirms (Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may correctly be referred to as God) then you protest, reject and deny these two things. Luke 2:1-7 ETC teaches that Mary bore Him and John 20:28 ETC states that Jesus may be correctly referred to as God. So, by rejecting the two things the title affirms and the Scriptures that teach them, you are rejecting one or both of these sets of Scripture.




.

 

[shinobi]

If you don't want to pray to blessed Mary then don't. What other Christians do with their prayers is nobody's business but their own and God's.

I would have to disagree with this statement. Prayer is very important and it is very important that we pray the correct way.

 

[shinobi]

Alithis, how would you react if someone referred to Mary as the Mother of God?

My view of this....

The Trinity makes up God. He is 3 parts (Father, Son, Spirit). I relate this to the average man. We are made up of different parts. We have a mind, a soul, and a body. I can generally refer to someones body as being that person, and people would understand that I am referring to said person and understand the context. But I would not be able to say that said person's body is truly who that person is. A body is not a person. A body, soul, and mind are a person. One of these things individually does not make up the entire person. But when individually spoken about in general they can be referred to as a person and it is understood. The same goes for the Trinity. The Son does not make up all of God. He makes up one of the 3 parts of God. Mary gave birth to the Son. She did not give birth to the Father, and she did not give birth to the Holy Spirit. Generally speaking it can be understood that what is meant when saying that Mary is mother of God is that she gave birth to Jesus the Son. When we get into the literal meaning of the word God though, the meaning of "Mary the mother of God" changes. She did not give birth to the Trinity (which is God fully). She only gave birth to a part of the God Head. So in literal meaning she is not the mother of God. She is just the mother of Jesus. Jesus does not make up God by himself. If he did then He would not have prayed to the Father. They are all separate parts that work together as one God, which is so complex I don't believe we will ever understand how this works.

God= Trinity

Trinity= Father+Son+Spirit

Son= One part of God (Trinity)

Father= One part of God (Trinity)

Spirit= One part of God (Trinity)

Thoughts and Criticism please......? :banana: