Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

The answer you seek from Bob Ryan has been answered over and over and ove and... well, you get the point... no, I guess you don't.

It has been answered. You just don't want to accept the truth.

Unto us a child is born
Unto us a Son is given.

It does not get any poainer than that.

 

Please make it plain so that we can be in no doubt, then, where you stand theologically on this absolutely vital Christological issue: is that child, that Son, God?

 

Well, I believe it is good that you don't take every statement of 'all' to literally mean 'Everyone' that has ever lived.

Yep. Again I'm glad that you don't take every statement of 'all' to literally mean 'Everything'.

Christ, the annointed one, is God. They were made 'righteous' by God's Grace-filled participation in and with them in a regenerative act of renewal. I dare say we agree with regard to Justification DHK. My guess is that where we may differ is that you might subscribe to the idea that Grace is to no effect in the life of a believer.

Note: I am not claiming that this is what you believe but if I had to guess our differences 'might' rest there. I believe Justification 'renews' man in a holistic relationship in Christ and that Sanctification is growth 'not' only in the sence of moral conviction but of 'true' participation in God's Will. This participation is what sanctifies us in the many blessings and graces given to believers in a life which is obedient. Remember, we are not talking about Justification. The believer is already Justified. I'm talking about Sanctification. Mary wasn't inherently sinful as if it was a posession of her Human Nature. She like us had faith which God imputed as righteousness. She was not Perfect in some kind of supernatural sense but she did 'share' in the overflowing graces of God and she is reap rewards in heaven for her participation in God's plan of Salvation. She did spend most if not all of her life under God's favor. That doesn't mean she couldn't error but my guess would be someone with that kind of intimacy with God and His Will would be admirable to encounter.

Righteousness is never thought of as an inherent possession or attribute of our Human Nature. It is always a gift from God. You act as this somehow degates the Teachings of the ECF. They knew this. This was not something new which was birthed out of the Reformation. Again read my thread on "What is Justification".

Where the ECF might differ from modern Reformation Theology might be in recognizing the true reward and life of the Saints in heaven Sanctified and made Brothers and Sisters of Christ. That is what the ECF mean when they speak of Deification. It is not making the 'self' God. It is putting away 'truly' the Old Self so that all that is left is 'Christ in you'. Paul did this. Why do you think he 'fought the good fight'? It wasn't for Justification, it was for Sanctification that he struggled, just as we all 'should'. When we put away the passions which bind us to our 'Carnal Selves' we more fully embrace our inheritance in Christ and more fully participate in the Grace and Will of God here and now. It is a foretaste.

Perhaps you are conflating Justification with the differing rewards in heaven and the differing degrees in which we can participate in the graces and blessing of God in our lives. No event in history is more significant that the birth, life, death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. All involved enjoyed much graces and blessing from God and their lives abounded in much trials. I dare say they have reaped reward in heaven.

Perhaps you should offer a definition of what you think Foreshadows are? We know that the risen Lord showed His own foreshadows to the Disciples on the Way to Emmaus... We know that Paul uses Allegories from the Old Testament. Were they both in error?

Allegory is truly a 'sense' in which the Scriptures can and do 'speak to the Spirit within us'. What you are conflating with Allegory is false presumptions. I don't believe a parallel is merited here at all. Did Paul error in using Allegory concerning Abraham? What of Elisabeth and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael? Did he error in using Allegory there? Should the Song of Songs 'not' be understood as Allegory? Is it merely an erotic poem? I'm sorry DHK but I don't believe your concerned is merited.

What was 'more' true the fact that these 'events' actually happened for was it the fact that they were written down? It is more important that Christ truly was born, lived, died and was resurrected or is it more important that we have stories that tell us a story about this fact?

The 'true' canon or measure is the 'Holy Spirit' which inspired not only the 'records of these events' but the 'events themselves'.

[to be continued]

 

Could you define 'Exegesis' and 'Isegesis' for me?

We will know them by their fruits. Look at their works and you can see a thread of consensual teachings throughout time. Such is argued to be the 'true' Church led by the Holy Spirit into All Truth. It is valuable to us in the modern day to ponder the ECF for no other reason than to 'test' our own exegesis for historic Christian synergy.

And what does mature and complete mean to you? Simply Justified or Fully Sanctified?

The primitive disciplines of Sanctification can be found very very early in the works of the Apostolic Fathers. I dare say such evidence weighs against your assertions here.

Define what you think I mean by 'type'.

Just 'assembly'? Do you honestly think that Paul thought the Church was a political associations? You do know the 'root' for ekklesia don't you? Do you honestly believe the Church which 'is' the Body of Christ should be limited to the 'root' meaning of ekklesia?

Is it really? It is impossible to have a Virgin Birth or Christ in us?

Brother, I can appreciate your belief in this but if we could define Exegesis and Isegesis we could talk further on this idea of one assuming they interpret the word of God without bias or influence from their tradition.

But He also deposited with His Disciples a exegesis for the scriptures (See Emmaus). This canon or measure was handed down and is the 'key' to the salvific life found in the Spirit which is nourished in His word.

Our Lord spoke the parables. They had value, for those with ears to hear. Our Lord explained what he spoke in mystery to His Disciples. Yes we have some of these teachings written down for us and truly the Scriptures is truth and light but even the Devil uses them to confuse and mislead those without the 'true' canon or measure.

Scripture in and of itself is not salvific only the Spirit Saves not words but The Word, Jesus Christ.

 

Bob, I have no clue why this is so difficult for you to understand…Theotokos says nothing of Mary being the Mother of God the Father…NOTHING.

Through Mary, God the Son was clothed with flesh…this event, this Incarnation, happened in Mary’s womb!

Mary did NOT clothed Jesus with His Divinity.

A little history lesson for you Bob, to help this sink in…

The Council of 431 argued, that Jesus Christ is Emmanuel, or God with us. The person, who is named Emmanuel, is in fact God, according to Isaiah 7.14. And this very prophetic text states that …a woman shall conceive, and bear a son… I.e., this woman shall be the one who bears Emmanuel, who is God. Put more straightforwardly, and eminently biblically, this woman (Mary) shall bear God, or be the God bearer, which is precisely what Theotokos means.

We find in the Holy Scripture the approach of Elizabeth when Mary came to her, in Luke 1.43… Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? In the Apostolic Scriptures, the term Lord had clearly come to be seen as a formal recognition of the Godhead of Christ (In the Jewish Scriptures, we frequently see YHWH referred to as the Lord God, while in the New Testament, we see the two words split apart, but together, as in One God, the Father, and One Lord, Jesus Christ.

St. Paul says in Romans 10 that …if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus…. you shall be saved…, a plain reference to having faith in the Lord who is God, Who alone can offer salvation. And so, Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit (and a leaping John the Baptist!), declares quite plainly that Mary is the Mother of my God.

Hope that helps, but something tells me…its useless.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

If the term means "God-bearer" as you assert, the only conclusion that one can come to is that you deny the trinity. That much is obvious.

 

Was the PERSON in Mary's womb God the Son (God the Word)--the Second Person of the Trinity? YES or NO?

 

I am not going to keep jumping through hoops and repeating myself as I have for the last twenty some pages. I listed a number of posts where I gave that information already. But you still do not believe.

 

You have not unambiguously answered the question, but have rather made ambiguous and contradictory statements in your responses, even within the same paragraph.

So YES or NO--was the PERSON in Mary's Womb in fact God the Son (the Word), the Second Person of the Trinity?

You don't need to "jump through hoops"--"yes" or "no" will suffice.

 

See previous posts. I tire of people that refuse to read.

 

I've read them DHK, and you haven't clearly stated "yes" or "no". Your answers have been ambiguous to stay the least (and at times contractory).

So, "YES" or "NO"--was the PERSON in Mary's Womb the Second Person of the Trinity (ie God the Son/Word)???

(Or are you for some reason afraid to answer "yes" or "no"?)

 

BTW, do you care to respond to this post (from earlier today)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
I have never said otherwise. Christ has always been God--always. He never gave up his deity, not even for one second. To say otherwise would be heresy. OTOH, to say that Mary is the mother of God is also heresy. She was simply a vessel that God used in one point in history to bring forth Christ. She never was his mother. Christ had no mother. He existed from all eternity.


Wow, I'm stunned. That statement is truly incredible coming from a so-called "biblicist".

What saith the Scriptures?

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother was betrothed to Joseph...." Matthew 1:18

Was Matthew wrong is saying Mary was the mother of Christ?

"And when they [the wise men] had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him." Matthew 2:11

Again, it refers to the mother of the Child. Was Matthew wrong in saying Mary was His mother?
Or do you suppose the Child was other than Christ?

"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (said Elizabeth to Mary) Luke 1:43

Was Elizabeth wrong is saying Mary was the mother of her Lord?

"And Joseph and His mother marveled at the things which were spoken of Him." Luke 2:33

Was Luke wrong in referring to Mary as His mother?
Or the "His" refer to someone other than Christ?

(Of course there are many more Scriptures stating that Mary was in fact the mother of Christ Jesus)

Do you now want to retract your statements that "Mary never

 

Mary was never the mother of the Eternal Word, the Mother of God, the "God-bearer," i.e., the trinity, the Father, etc., and all that that term "theotokos" would therefore imply.
Scripture must harmonize with Scripture.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

A body was prepared by the Father for Christ.
Mary did not prepare the body, but the Father.
The meaning of this verse is that Christ "assumed" a body.

To call Mary "mother" is somewhat like an anthropormorphism. It is put in simple language so that we can understand. It is not put in theological language. Just as Isaiah 43:10 does the same when it says "I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness." God doesn't have a right hand. "God is spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." A spirit has no physical form. God has no right arm or hand. It is an anthropormorphism, a term to help us understand what God is like.

Obviously Mary acted in the capacity of a mother, an adoptive Mother to the child Jesus. Jesus never relinquished his deity. But he did lay aside his divine attributes for a time. God has no mother. Mary only acted in the capacity of a mother.
This became very obvious at different times in the ministry of Jesus:

Woman what have I to do with thee.
Woman behold thy son.

There was a distance put between Mary (the adoptive mother), and Mary, a believer in Christ, no different than any other believer present in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost where 120 others were praying. They were all equals. Mary was never worshiped. She never had any exaltation above any other person at any time.

 

Uhhh, no I don’t deny the Trinity DHK…not sure how you come to that conclusion, but the Theotokos, that which was formally affirmed during the Third Ecumenical Council was a defense against Nestorius who claimed that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning Mary’s the mother of Christ’s humanity only. It was an attack against Jesus Christ and His two natures as one.

To say such a thing is to divide Jesus into two distinct persons, thus destroying the perfect union of the divine and the human natures in Christ.

Even if you want to keep shouting “Christ laid aside His divinity”, Christ in Mary’s womb, kicking and wiggling remained not only 100% divine, but 100% human.

When Mary pushed her last and Jesus Christ emerged, he emerged a babe, 100% divine, yet 100% human. Jesus Christ is God, thus the babe Mary gave birth to was God in the flesh!

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Once again, was the PERSON in Mary's womb the Eternal Word, the Second Person of the Trinity? YES or NO??

Wow...so in saying Mary's "motherhood" is an "anthropomorphism" are you denying Christ's real humanity?

Where in Scriptures does it ever say Mary was Jesus's "adoptive" mother?
Did she adopt Jesus?
Was Jesus not really the "seed of a woman"? nor born of a woman (Gal 4:4)?
Nor the "seed of David according to the flesh" (as Paul says in Romans 1:3)?

 

Was the Person Mary trained "the God-man Jesus"? Yes!

So "Trainer of God"?

Joseph - "Instructor of God"??

Mary - "Wiser than God"?

Joseph "Corrector of God"?

Mary "Stronger than God"??

But ignoring this obvious point we have --

Bringing us to the next obvious point -

Being 100% divine had nothing to do with Mary or Biology.

Biology is not a pathway to being God



What was Mary the "instructor of"?

What was Mary the "wiser than"?

What was Mary teaching "to add" when he was a small child?

What was Mary "correcting" when he was a small child?

What was Mary "protecting" when he was an infant?

...

"Corrector of God"

"Wiser than God"

"Protector of God"

... Odd how these all serve to exault the HUMAN parent to "QUEEN of the UNIVERSE" rather than exaulting Christ.

To the point that (predictably) we NOW see pictures and images of MARY the adult holding a "tiny Jesus" and we read about worship/prayers "at Mary's altars"

in Christ,

Bob

 

"Jesus said"

Never "God said -- this is My Mother"

Never "Mary - Mother of God"

No not even ONCE in all of scripture!

For such error you need the traditions of man - because you do not find it in scripture.

The Bible tells the story of the INCARNATION of God the Son.

The RCC and a few other denominations following in her footsteps prefers to use the PROCREATION term "Mary the MOTHER of God" though it is not found even ONCE in all of scripture!

Leading the RCC on to "The QUEEN of the UNIVERSE" adoration and exaultation of the HUMAN PARENT of GOD who is given the PROCREATION role even to the point of needing an "immaculate conception" herself!

in Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, therefore the Bible calls her " Mother of Jesus", not mother of God !!!

Jesus was God and Man. But because of the Trinity, NOBODY in the Bible called her " Mother of God", except the stupid, foolish godess worshippers in later times.

 

Is James, the Brother of Jesus, Brother of God?

Does anyone call King David as Great Great Grand Father of God?

Who calls Adam the Ancestor of God ?

Only the stupid people are trappped in the human syllogism.