Jesus Repudiates the Mariolatry Volume III

Grace and Peace Bobryan,

I'd like to ask that you cease with the ad hominem attacks...

Could you define what you believe "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" means?

Do you recognize that in the Incarnation the fulness of the Godhead humbled Himself to become man and that this act in no way challenges our Lord's sovereignty?

Do you recognize that in the Incarnation, God became 'fully and completely' man?

Thank you and God Bless.

 

This is where the misunderstanding occurs: there is no exaltation of Mary and Joseph over Jesus - over God - or even approaching the status of God; that indeed would be blasphemy. The problem, on the contrary, occurs when - as you've hinted - you try to remove God from the child Jesus; now that negates the Incarnation and is heresy, I'm afraid. You hinted that here:

(I think you'll find that any Christian with an understanding of orthodox Christology would complain vociferously if you try to 'take out God' from Jesus.)


But I'm sure that's not what you meant...is it?

 

No, I am not saying that "THEY" plural equates to singular Mary. I am saying "THEY" equates to 'those like Mary', who hear the word of God and obey it.

You believe the "THEY" he is saying is blessed is plural as in the crowd. If you read in context, I think you will discover this is hardly a 'believing' crowd he was speaking to. Yet you prefer to believe he's saying they are 'blessed' while publicly disrespecting his mother, whose 'hearing the word of God and obeying' is well documented in Scripture.

I don't know about all, but I can be in agreement if the response to "BLESSED is Mary the Mother of God" is in the context of her blessedness not in the biological parental role, but in the believer's role which we should all strive to imitate, such that we too may say to God "let it be done unto me according to your word".

Regarding this, you continually make comments like "DO a lot of these routines in their worship", or "Mary-centered". I am still waiting for an answer as to what you base this on? I know that the Orthodox & RCC certainly have prayers in honor of Mary which you may disagree with. But I don't think your claim that they are Mary-centered or "DO a lot" is supported by anything I'm aware of. I asked if you could point to either the Divine Liturgy or the Mass which are their respective central and common worship services to show where there is a lot of centering on Mary? As far as I can tell, Mary prayers come into the picture on specific feast days or in more private devotions, and are by no means central to their routine worship. I was wondering if you have evidence to the contrary?

 

I did not mean to focus you on the "A lot" vs "a bit more" vs "a bit less" quantification issue. My concern was with "doing the mariolotry" at all in the form of divine worship service centered on activities that include titles such as "Mary mother of God".

 

Bob said

IF "ON THE CONTRARY" could be spun around to "YES Blessed is Mary as my MOTHER but even more so BLESSED is Mary because she believed in me being the Messiah as do these people here" (words we don't actually find IN THE TEXT) then I think you have a point there.

In this case we STILL have no "Mary mother of GOD" statement by Christ or by ANY Bible writer!

In this case we have DIRECT attempt to bless Mary's MOTHERHOOD in relation to Jesus - being rebuffed with "On the CONTRARY"

Luke 11 - NASB

28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."



"ON the Contrary Mary is blessed only because she like my other disciples hears the word of God and abserves it"?

Is this your claim?


in Christ,

Bob

 

When the attempt is made to focus on the biology - the parenting and biology of Mary's role - the answer is

"ON the Contrary!!" and the focus is changed from biology and parenting -- to BELIEVING and obeying and the PERSON focused is changed to the GROUP focus!

How can we possibly turn a blind eye to that singular case?!

in Christ,

Bob

 

err... umm sure thing!

Where am I using ad hominem??

Sure - he is God the Son "incarnate" not "proCREATED".

I thought I already covered that a few dozen times -- if not -- I will start doing it again.

Incarnation language never challenges the deity of Christ - but a focus on procreation relationships does.

So Christ was correct in responding to the procreation focus using the words "On the CONTRARY" - wouldn't you agree?

in Christ,

Bob

 

For now I shall not get into this for the sake of further constructive dialogue.

Could you recognize a 'distinction' between the nature of the Logos and the 'personhood' of Jesus Christ? I am speaking about the 'taking on of a human nature'... It is this 'distinction' within the Incarnation taking on 'a human nature' in union with it's 'divine nature' that would be the 'distinction' between the Logos and the person Jesus Christ. The person Jesus Christ 'was' born 'fully man' and yet 'fully God'. This person 'is' God. This person 'was' born. This person 'had' a mother, the Virgin Mary, Theotokos (God-Bearer). She was the mother of the Anthropos (God-Man).

Before the Incarnation... there was no person Jesus Christ nor was there an Anthropos (God-Man). The Logos descended and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ. That person has a human soul, a human will that was in union with the will of God (Holy Trinity) because the Logos dwelt in the Flesh of sinful man.

Any study of the Incarnation reveals that the title Theotokos is given duly for the fact that the 'person' of Jesus Christ was born (fully God, fully Man). Due to the unity of this Incarnation it is unspeakable to divide what God has joined for the Salvation of humanity.

You have repeatedly attempted to divide this unity and downplay the humanity of the Incarnation and the personhood of Jesus Christ. It simply does not stand.

I implore you to seriously reconsider your claims and to take the time to study this further.

Be Well.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
err... umm sure thing!

Fine - but just for the record - if you post to a link where I am using actual ad hominem "name calling etc, personal attacks etc" regarding any poster on this board on this topic or on this thread I am more than happy to appologize for it AND to give my sincere thanks to you for pointing it out.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Yes the 2nd person of the God head was zero-human prior to incarnation "by nature". But then after the incarnation is the "God-man" (by nature) but is still the same PERSON.

So yes - I see a distinction between nature and person in that case.

No doubt.

But God-the-Son was not "born then" He already pre-existed from eternity past.

That is "The difference" between a true procreation event AND a true INCARNATION event.

In the incarnation - the God nature is not "born" it is not "procreated" it is pre-existing!

God the Son - the "person" has no "Mother" has no one "Wiser than him" no one "correcting Him".

He is God - and God alone!

The equivocation that is attempted between the God nature incarnate and the human nature PROCREATED results in the procreation terms being used such as

"Wiser than God"
"instructor of God"
"Stronger than God"
"Mother of God"

All terms that NO BIBLE writer or NT saint uses regarding Christ -- not even Christ himself when it comes to His mother.

But regarding your point "Mary the mother of God" in terms of Biology and parental role of the "person" -- when that specific subject is raised in Luke 11 and that statement is made that Mary is blessed in that role Christ says "ON THE CONTRARY" -- and I would say with Christ "ON the CONTRARY".

Humanity was not "incarnated" at the birth Christ - "God was".

God pre-existed and therefore has no mother.

Because of that Christ could say "ON the CONTRARY" to the statement "BLESSED BE the WOMAN who..." speaking specifically of Mary's role in biology as "Mother" of Jesus.



I implore you to seriously reconsider your claims and to take the time to study this further.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Actually, after the Incarnation we have One Person with Two Natures and the Logos is the same pre or post-Incarnation. Remember, God is Immutable, He cannot change, merge or co-mingle thus the distinction of 'Two Natures in unity, undivided yet not-confused or co-mingled'.

According to the the doctrine of the Incarnation, the eternal Logos assumed a 'complete' human nature and was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Ghost (i.e. Spirit). While the Incarnation is itself a work of the Holy Trinity acting together, only the Second Person of the Trinity is united with a human nature. The resulting union is nonetheless a substantial one, traditionally designed as "hypostatic," in which the divine and human natures are joined in the one Person (hypostasis) of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is 'more' than just the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, He is the Theanthropos (God-Man).

This Theanthropos (God-Man) was 'born'. You are conflating and confusing the Second Person of the Holy Trinity with the Word Incarnate Jesus Christ. In doing this you are ignoring the Humanity of our Lord and making His humanity of none effect to our Salvation nor to the unique and salvific personality of Jesus Christ.

The Logos pre-existed but when that Logos took upon itself the hypostatic union with humanity Jesus Christ was Born!

No, you are assuming that there was not Hypostatic Union in Jesus Christ as if the Logos simply possessed a shell without a soul or a will of it's own working in 'union' with the will of the Holy Trinity.

This is correct, you're not going to get an argument out of me concerning this but your error isn't in recognizing the eternal nature of the Godhead... you're error is in assuming that not 'real' hypostatic union occurred in the humanity of Jesus Christ and the Logos that only the Logos existed controlling a Shell of human form with no soul, or will of it's own. The Biblical testimony doesn't bear this out. Jesus Christ is 'fully Man' and 'fully God' (Anthropos). There was not being like this before the Incarnation. This new being Jesus Christ is the hypostatic union of God and Man (One Person) born of a woman, the Virgin Mary.

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself ~ 2 Cor. 5:19

Notice the distinction be 'God and Christ' in this verse? Jesus is a 'real' man with 'real' distinctiveness, due to the hypostatic union with His Humanity, from the personhood of the Godhead.

No, Jesus is Theanthropos (Completely Man... Completely God) in a hypostatic union....

By the two-nature hypostasis, Christ is distinguished both from other human persons and from the other persons of the Trinity: "On the one hand, He is joined to the Father and the Spirit by His divinity, while on the other He is joined by His humanity to His Mother and to all men. However, because of the fact that His natures are united, we say that He differs both from the Father and the Spirit and from His Mother and other men" ~ John of Damascus On the Orthodox Faith

Nope again. Christ's humanity is inescapable throughout the Biblical testimony. His distinctiveness from the Divine Nature is evident.

He grew in wisdom
He grew in the strength of the Holy Spirit
He grew sleepy
He grew hungery
etc, etc

It was not the Logos that lacked wisdom or strength in the Holy Spirit it was the Anthropos which did in it's unique hypostatic union.

Augustine begs to differ...


From a sermon by Augustine, Bishop of Hippo:

Stretching out his hand over his disciples, the Lord Christ declared: Here are my mother and my brothers, anyone who does the will of my Father who sent me is my brother and my sister and my mother. I would urge you to ponder these words. Did the Virgin Mary, who believed by faith and conceived by faith, who was the chosen one from whom our Saviour was born among men, who was created by Christ before Christ was created in her... did she not do the will of the Father?

Indeed the blessed Mary certainly did the Father's will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ's disciple than to have been his mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood. Hers was the happiness of first bearing in her womb him whom she would obey as her master.

Mary isn't the Mother of God because of flesh and blood but of faith 'do unto me what you have said'. Mary's Fiat (i.e. her participation) was to His Glory and her reward.

In ascribing to Mary the term theotokos, "bearer of God," there has never been intended the slightest implication that Mary gave birth to the Godhead, but only to the incarnate Son (Council of Ephesus, NPNF 2 XIV, pp. 348-57)

"We do not, however, say that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the unity of this Trinity, but only to the Son who alone assumed our nature" (Eleventh Council of Toledo, CF, p. 170). The intention is accurately stated by John II (A.D. 533-535), that Mary is "truly the one who bore God, and the Mother of God's Word, become incarnate from her" (Epist. 3, SCD 202, p.83). "We do not say that God was born of her in the sense that the divinity of the Word has its beginning of being from her, but in the sense that God the Word Himself... did in the last days come for our salvation to dwell in her womb" (John Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith; Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter to Nestorius, LCC III)

 

One person - a change in nature as I said.

Mary is not the mother of His God-nature that pre-existed Mary.

Hence the problem with "Mary the mother of GOD"

It is impossible to claim that I am ignoring the humanity of Christ each time I claim that Mary is biologically the mother of the humanity of Christ but not the mother of His God nature.

You will need to try another approach.

in Christ,

Bob

 

"(Epist. 3, SCD 202, p.83)."
I am thankful that we have the inspired word of God to rely on and not the fallible works of fallible men.

 

I'm not Bound but I'll bite:

1. No

2. No

3. No

...er...none of which is relevant to the issue of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Your point?

 

No, you are not still waiting for my answer. I answered you on 12-18-2007 at 02:47 PM on Volume II of this debate post #304. I encourage you to read it.

It deals with the error of thinking of God as three separate gods... Tri-Theism. You're assumption appears to be that if one of the three personas of the Godhead is not procreated by Mary, then being the mother of the person Jesus Christ does not make her the mother of God by default. You would further conclude a radical distinction between the person Jesus Christ and the Godhead as well as establish a radical distinction between the divinity and humanity of our Lord. What you and Bobryan continue to fail to realize is that the unity of the hypostasis is more radical than your desire to challenge it and it's unity in the personhood of Jesus Christ is what is unique and special about our Lord. He choose to die on a cross. That wasn't the bravery of God acting, that was the bravery of a prefect man in perfect union with God's will. Yes fully God, but also fully Man. You and Bobryan have all but dismissed what is fully apparent in the Biblical testimony concerning the presence of a 'complete' humanity in union with the Logos in our Lord. This radically distorts your view of our Lord and any understanding of the real challenges He faced as a man. Was Jesus 'truly' tempted? How could Satan have won in the desert? Was there a possibility? The answer to all these questions is 'YES' but our Lord triumphed over him. It was a 'true' victory and not one simply won because He was God and immutable, Omnipotent and Omniscient. It was won because the humanity of Jesus Christ yielded to His inherent Godly Nature and overcame the passions of His Human Nature. These are the dynamics that God alone could not do. Only in the hypostatic union could the Godhead actually face temptation as we do everyday. Only in the hypostatic union could the Godhead demonstrate for us perfection in the person of Jesus Christ. This was not a perfection born our of privilege but a perfection born out of true and unabiding faith and yielding the human nature to that of the divine. Everything we see in our Lord we should aspire. We shouldn't look at Him as completely alien to our own nature but as an example of how we in our own nature in unity with God should be and can be. This is what the ancient doctrine of deification and Sanctification is all about but you and Bobryan's radical separation of the personhood of Jesus Christ as the Theanthropos (God-Man) merely a shell for God to display His might over Satan and Death... You've missed the whole point of His coming in the Flesh. He didn't come here because He couldn't have done 'that' any other way... He came here to show 'us' how to escape the bondage of sin and death. We are participants. Our example is Christ. What He had by nature, we have through adoption. Jesus is not only our Lord and our God, He is also our example of perfect humanity. Your radical separation of His humanity is a radical twisting of the doctrine of the Incarnation. I'm afraid it shares more with Nestorianism than it does with the Ancient Faith.

Be Well.

 

And you don't see the symbolism of his words? You actually think he wanted them murdered? If so then how could they die to theselves and live to you?

But in response to the larger thrust of your post. You're assumption is that if you can find even one error in Augustine's body of work then we must dismiss all of his works as in error. This is a falacious a priori assumption to start of with but more to the point we can know what is 'shared' with the works of Augustine and the larger consensual teachings of the Church through comparison. The whole point of a 'consensual' body of teachings is that they are not drawn from any 'one' person but the teachings in common to the whole Early Church. Patristics is nothing but the study of the consensual teachings of the 'whole' body of the early Church. Not simply Augustine alone. I am not bound to agree with Augustine if such is not in consensual agreement with the larger body of Early Church Teaching.

I have used several Early Church Fathers to affirm what has been historically accepted as normative within the consensual teachings of the church. You have largely fallen outside of that evidence with mere novel argumentation. If we cannot establish these positions as normative within the body of teachings by the Church in the beginning then they cannot be the teachings of the Church. Force of conviction, detraction of historic figures and novel argumentation doesn't orthodoxy make.

 

We really do need a thread to discuss your assumed infallibility in interpreting the Scriptures. Catholics claim to have one Pope Infallible but Protestants each claim to be the Pope infallible. I say you are both in grave error. :laugh:

 

Bravo Zulu :applause:

ICXC NIKA
-