Does God have a Mother II

24 pages wasn't enough for you?

 

Obviously if people skirt around the same questions, you will continue to ask those same logical questions. It was you, natters, who claims that anyone who doesn't think the way you do should repent and get help with their pastor.

 

It is enough for me natters, are you ready to accept now that you aren't going to get good Baptist to loose 500 years of progress and go back to a Title that has cost so much pain and split the church before and been abused by goddess worshippers since the council of Ephesus.

 

I said nothing about repenting. I only suggested that those of you who are obviously having trouble with the standard, orthodox Christian position on this matter ask you pastor about it - perhaps he can help you understand it and explain why it is the standard, orthodox Christian position.

Have any of you talked to your pastors about this yet?

I'm not asking you to go back to the title, I personally don't care if you use it or not. My main purpose in the thread was to try to explain why its core meaning is entirely orthodox, despite any abuse and misunderstanding by others.

 

"I'm not asking you to go back to the title, I personally don't care if you use it or not. My main purpose in the thread was to try to explain why its core meaning is entirely orthodox, despite any abuse and misunderstanding by others."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I repeat your and Cyril's sylogism relys on limiting the meaning of mother. If you have go make extra efforts to force it to work, that should tell you somehing. It naturally make no sense to floks until you beat them over the head with your limited definitions of mother.

 

So what?

We have the same problem with MANY theological issues and terms. "Trinity" is even harder to explain and understand.

 

"We have the same problem with MANY theological issues and terms. "Trinity" is even harder to explain and understand."--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Trinity does not have a 1500 year history of trouble and abuse to prove that it is more trouble than it is worth.

 

So "trouble" should be a determining factor in orthodoxy? I think not.

And if you think the Trinity does not have trouble, try telling that to the JWs, Mormons, United Pentecostals, never mind the Muslims, etc.

 

"So "trouble" should be a determining factor in orthodoxy? I think not.

And if you think the Trinity does not have trouble, try telling that to the JWs, Mormons, United Pentecostals, never mind the Muslims, etc."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am only concerned with Christians. The differnces, is it causes alot of problems and does not contribute anything. All my life I have been around christians who did not use the title, but who advocated the full divenity of Christ. The only folks who ever NEEDED this title were virgin Godess worshipors.

 

So you're saying that "Christians" require a proper understanding of who Jesus is?

In my opinion, it contributes quite a lot, once properly understood - as is evidenced on the other thread where several people rejected the orthodox Christian position on who Jesus is, in a defense as to why they reject the term "Mother of God".

 

Forgive them, for they did not know that you were maneuvering them into a bad position with a subtle switch of the meaning of Mother, they knew not what they did.

 

Funny. However, I made the meaning I was using crystal clear (and so did several others) from the start.

 

Funny. However, I made the meaning I was using crystal clear (and so did several others) from the start. "-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Playing with sylogisms and logic strings and abstract concepts of how christ's human and God natures are bound is not someting these fine upstanding christians have much experience with, so it could not be clear to us in the beginning.

 

Doubting Thomas said "Mary is the mother of God in the sense that the one--Jesus Christ--she conceived and bore in time was from eternity, God. It does not mean that she's the source of Christ's divinity." and "Mary is indeed the Mother of God because the one she conceived , bore and gave birth to is in fact truly God. However, she obviously is not the source of Christ's divinity, since He had that from eternity."

I said "Mary gave birth to his divinity as well, but that doesn't mean that's when his divinity began." and " "mother of" does not require the meaning "origin of"."

If that wasn't clear to you, how do you suggest we have said it?

 

Joseph is the teacher of Jesus -- Where are all the "Teacher of God" titles for Joseph?

Where are all the RC promoters of mary - clammoring for Joseph to be called "Teacher of God" or else Christ is not the INCARNATE form of God the Son?!!

They are nowhere! Because such unbiblical titles HAVE NOTHING to do with PROOF that Christ is the Son of God!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eliyahu said, in the old thread:

Human Syllogism

Ho hum.

Eliyahu, having previously demonstrated that he has no great understanding of orthodox Christology, orthodox Trinitarian theology, or church history, decides to go for the clean sweep and demonstrate that he has no clue about logic, either, or indeed what a "syllogism" is.

 

BobRyan said:

Joseph is the teacher of Jesus -- Where are all the "Teacher of God" titles for Joseph?

Joseph is the "teacher of God" in exactly the same sense as Mary is the "mother of God" - that is, he was (we may assume) the teacher of Jesus Christ, who is God.

Therefore, to call Joseph the "teacher of God" in that sense is perfectly orthodox, just as calling Mary the "mother of God" in that sense is.

As to why no one is clamouring for this title to be used of him, obviously it was never the basis of a theological controversy, probably since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, so it never came up. Let me just add, however, that inventing arbitrary controversies that never existed doesn't actually win arguments.