Jesus repudiates Mariolatry, Part the Fourth

I will take a crack at it.

This is rejected when compared to the Bible. No Bible author uses that language -- no not even once.

As all Christians know - the ONE TRUE GOD is in fact the Triune God -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

ALL of them according to scripture existed before Mary.

In fact they are the MAKERS of Mary -- Mary is not the maker of God.

The argument in the quote above is designed to exault the human character of Mary above God.

As would "Stronger than God" and "Corrector of God" and "instructor of God" do for Mary or Joseph or any other family members.

Such statements only mislead - they do not edify.

It is historically correct that some did hold to that error.

But the fact that no Bible writer ever blunders into that - is instructive for the objective unbiased reader.

This is the same dark-ages argument that could be applied to "smarter than God" - "Instructor of God" and "stronger than God" --

It's a hollow argument that survives neither a test of scripture no basic applicatoin of reason.

And here the authors of the statement admit to their own blunder. They admit that the "PROCREATION term" -- MOTHER OF GOD - DOES imply beginning of being -- for it is a procreation term - not an incarnation term.

John makes this point perfectly in chapter 1 of his gospel without ever even ONCE having to resort to the RCC formula of error.

Odd how John can convey the point perfectly without resorting to pure error. You would think that his having already successfully made the point - the RCC would be content to simply quote John!!

In that statement the authors appear to focus on Mary as "mother" of the human nature of Christ and indeed authoring/forming the BEGINING of that nature.

Too bad they choose terminology that denies the very point they are trying to make in that last statement.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree with it too.

 

Matt,

Hey, I kinda like the British "flair" in how you phrased that! :wavey:

God bless,

Mike

 

Calling a creature Mother of God is an Insult to God the Creator, and also it assaults God the Father because it denies God the Father is God.

Again, we don't rely on Nestorius. We have sufficient proof in the Bible which includes the question from our Lord Jesus, " Who is my Mother ?" ( Mt 12:48) and His clear declaration that whosoever shall do the will of my Father in heaven the same is MY MOther" ( Mt 12:50)

Therefore there are millions of Mothers of God in the world if one try to anyone to be called " Mother of God".

The following came from the ignorance of the Bible.

Did her flesh and protein become the body of Jesus?

Did the ovum of Mary become fertilized with the Holy Spirit?

None of human Ovum is designed to be fertilized with the Word of God !

It cannot be !

If the body of Jesus was formed by Mary, even the brain was formed by the embryo, then where was Jesus gone whom Moses worked for ( Heb 11:26) and whose days Abraham saw?

Bible clearly indicates that Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit ( Mt 1:20) BEFORE He was born by Mary ( Mt 1:25)

We should note the verb in Mt 1:20 is gennao used for begotten, beget.

We cannot but conclude the Jesus was brought in the fleshment of Embryo by the Holy Spirit.

Mary didn't live a virgin and she had at least 4 sons and 2 daughters ( may be more daughters), though she was a virgin when she bore Jesus.

Mary of Mark 6:3 is the same Mary in Mark 15:47 who is the mother of Jose and James. Mark 6:3 says Jose and James are the Brothers of Jesus. Therefore the title called Perpetual Virgin Mary is a Hoax !

Nobody in the Bible called Mary the Mother of God. Why did they omit to call her in the Bible like that? Was it negligible ?
Will they be punished for not calling her like that?

Why does Heb writer deny in Heb 7:1-5 that Son of God had the Mother?

 

Grace and Peace Everyone,

Although I have participated in this debate during it's 1st, 2nd and 3rd incarnation. I see no fruitful discuss happen with those who repeatedly offer up the same assertions. Although, personally, I believe this does grave harm to Christology and plays into the hands of Muslim Apologists I see no reason to pursue this topic further.

That said I, personally, recognize the Virgin Mary as Ever Blessed. I have defended this position for those who care to search for it but I see very little reason to do this dance again. Anyone can simply yell their assertion but only reasonable individuals can discuss the merits of another's argument. That isn't happening here.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

All the human beings suffered the death, and they are waiting for the Judgment by Jesus Christ.

Let the dead sleep or rest until the Judgment Day, and we are supposed to praise and adore the Only God thru Jesus Christ who is the Savior and Mediator.

We will not be punished for not exalting the woman who fullfiled her own duty and died and had her body corrupted in the dust.

 

Perpetual Virginity is a part of Mariolatry.

Jesus is called the second Adam, which means He didn't belong to the first Adam, while we are all human race of Adam and Mary belong to Adam's race.

Jesus didn't belong to first Adam's race while Mary belonged to.

Mary was a sinner, but Jesus was not, though He looked like a common human being born thru His surrogate mother Mary who was a human incubator with the corruptible body.

 

If you read his post he appears to deny Mary's motherhood of the person Jesus. Frankly, I don't even believe he is attempting to square this with Jesus being 'Fully Man' and 'Fully God' because such teaching are not objectively taught in the Scriptures. Perhaps one could argue that they are inferred... but as much as they are clinging to a most extreme position of literalism to deny the motherhood of Mary I don't see have your can get them to accept anything which isn't overtly taught in the Scriptures.

Is Jesus 'Fully God' or 'Fully Man'?

 

Not too much. "Born of the virgin Mary; conceived of the Holy Ghost," as the Apostles' Creed states.
Most like to add the caveat that in no way was Mary the mother of the divinity of Christ, and technically should be called a surrogate mother or an adoptive mother--one used of God to bring Christ into the world. We should not bring more emphasis on Mary than is due her. She was used of God at one time and place in history, and that is all.

 

Should we also objectify Abraham, Moses and John the Baptist too? They were all 'used' by God for His convenience... Is God simply playing his own little game with us as pawn?

 

Yes, why not?
The difference is that God loves you with an infinite love so great that you will never be able to comprehend.
Secondly, he has created each and everyone of us uniquely and differently. So he knows our limitations, what is best for us, how much we can suffer or endure, etc.
And as you put it in such a crass way--God is sovereign. He is on the throne, no matter what happens, though he already knows in advance what is going to happen. You may call it a game. I call it the sovereignty and providence of God.

God used Mary to bring forth His Son.
God used Peter to preach to thousands on the Day of Pentecost.
God used Moses to lead Israel out of bondage in Egypt.
God used David to slay Goliath and rule over Israel.

God has used all these people in ways that you or I will never be used. So why give Mary more pre-eminence than any other individual that is used of God. They were all used of God--each in their own respective ways as they yielded themselves to Him.

 

How do you define 'love'? How can you assert a God that treats individuals as objects for His own whim and in the same breath say that He loves us? How can He love us if He doesn't encounter us on our level as persons? How can He damn us if we are His Slaves?

Are you following where your argument takes us? Honestly, DHK I have a really hard time understanding this God of yours. It appears to have far more in common with the Islamic (Allah) than the Abba of Christ.

 

Nobody complains when the combined nature -- when the incarnate human nature is specifically highlighted with Mary as the Mother of Jesus or of Jesus Christ or Mother of the Messiah.

These are all listed in scripture as well.

But what scripture DOES NOT allow is terms such as "Mary Mother of God" on the same basis as it would not allow "Stronger than God" - "Mary - wiser than God".

GOD IS one -- One Triune God as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. These persons all existed prior to Mary -- she was not the originator of any of them.

Plain and simple.

No was she "wiser than God" or "Stronger than God" or the "corrector of God".

in Christ,

Bob

 

If you read what I said in my post it was this:

"The difference is that God loves you with an infinite love so great that you will never be able to comprehend."

It is defined in this way:

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrated his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

He has made us objects of his love. The very reason for his creating us is to bestow his love upon us. He did not, as you seem to infer, create us all the same, or as robots. But rather he created us differently, and knew beforehand that we would all make choices that would respond to his love differently. The question of the ages is: "How have you (any person) responded to the love of God?

Why do you speak so harshly or even blasphemously (as I would take it).
The Islamic God is impersonal, but I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Islam is an impersonal religion, but Christianity is based on a God that loves and interacts with His children. I have made that clear already. Just because we are not all the virgin Mary, does not mean that God is biased. Did you expect for God to give us all a role equivalent to Mary???
God gives each one a role according to His will, and according as he sees fit for that person. Is that so hard to understand?

 

In the quote above we see echo of the language in John 1 we do NOT see the phrase "Mother of God" there! So the point of INCARNATION made in John 1 was made fully and without defect - in what Johh stated. Nothing more -- nothing less.

John never even mentions the term.

It is a made-up-term invented for us by the RCC.

IF you were using the terms John used in John1 (as is the section of the quote I highlighted) INSTEAD of "Mary Mother of God" (something he NEVER used or defended) we could at least start addressing your point above.

in Christ,

Bob