Jesus repudiates Mariolatry, Part the Fourth

I'm glad you interpreted all of that correctly. Thanks much.

 

by turning the Word of God to have flesh.

Yah, that's why there is NO way for Mary to become the Biological Mother. She had nothing more than the flesh to offer to Jesus and you know that None of the flesh from Mary could contribute the formation of Jesus, then she cannot be Biological Mother!

What's the definition of Biological Mother in your term?

You are eventually pleading with Mystery. If you don't know please keep silence.

No, his way of debate is tricky by flattering to the third person.
He could not defend his logic and could not bring any Bible verse to support his own claim. He could not refute my defense, then he insinuated that I am like John Hagee.

What does John Hagee have with this debate?
He could bring some more reasonable argument from the Bible. But he could not ! Then he just insinuated that I deny Jesus is Messiah ! Then he might have accused me as denying Messiah-ship of Jesus.

I don't need anyone's support on this earth, but God knows the Truth and support my belief.

The Truth that the Word of God became flesh is so much important Truth that cannot be denied by any other human theories. It will stand forever, and moreover, Jesus knows whether He took anything from a sinner or not, and that Word became the flesh, the flesh He wore.

You cannot change the Truth by gathering many people !

 

I didn't know before that John Hagee also denied the Biological Motherhood of Mary.

If you can check the record of this BB, you can find that I claimed that the Ovary of Mary was not used for Jesus, since the end of 2004 on this Board.

 

If any Ovum or any particle or any tissue or any cell of Mary was used for the formation of Jesus, it contradicts " Word became Flesh"

If nothing of Mary was used for the formation of Jesus, Mary cannot be the Biological Mother.

There is NO WAY for Mary to become the Biological Mother !

 

Joe, if somebody told you (assume you're a girl for a minute) that you would have a son, wouldn't you assume it would be yours? The word 'a' hardly makes one think -- oh, but it won't be my son. To say "thou shaly conceive in thy womb, and bring forth your son" sounds a little strange.

If the separation you're looking for was intended, I believe it would have said "and bring forth a male child". "Son" by definition implies "mother".

 

Eliyahu, it was never my intent to correlate that specific belief to you. Ann is correct in that I was responding to her comment about John Hagee not being a reliable source for doctrine. It can definitely be difficult to always interpret correctly on a message board though (and even in real life) and I apologize if I left room open for you to think I was directing it towards you personally. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

 

Ms Mrtumnus :thumbs:........

You said...

And Joe said...

Mrtumnus, why do you think the Catholic Church goes to such great lenghths to manufacture all of these fairy tales about Mary being free of original sin, never commiting sin during her life, her supposed "Assumption" into heaven, etc etc etc.

They MUST find some way, no matter how outlandish, to get...that...sin...nature...out...of...Mary. If Mary contributed biologically to Christ, then Christ would have had a sin nature. He would have been "tainted".

In adition, they must also maintain Mary's "High and Lifted Up" status as "Queen of the Universe" and "Mother of God".


Mary certainly carried Christ. Mary certainly was "found" to be with child, and yet to that point a virgin. And that child was Christ. All of her other children had a sin nature of course, from both Joseph and Mary. Mary was certainly blessed, but even Christ Himself refused to inordinately lift her up.

God bless,

Mike

 

mrtumnus said...

And annsi said...

Oh great. Now the WOMEN are gathering! :eek:

And we havent even got the "MEETING of the MEN"...:1_grouphug: ... over with yet!


This is gonna be a real standoff guys, but we WILL prevail!

We...are...MEN!

Mike

 

To deny that Jesus was the biological son of Mary is a form of docetism, slice it or dice it, and I've already stated that the John the Evangelist roundly condemns that heresy. As Ann has pointed out, it also flatly contradicts the prophecy given by God Himself in Gen 3:15. Nothing is impossible for God; let's take care to remember that rather than try to hedge Him round with the so-called 'life science' knowledge of fallen men.

 

Matt,

Well....you should know that most of us who are scripturalists tend to sort of laugh off these terms that *men* have come up with to hurl at opponents. We just sort of say "Oh. OK...if you like that term, fine"...and then we just forget about it.

We are *scripture* people. It is the scriptures we concern ourselves with, and people with theological axes to grind dont concern us much.

Regarding your claim, however...

From Wikipedia...

I dont believe any of that nonsense.

I dont believe any of that nonsense, either.

Nope. None of that, either.



I’m innocent! I’m innocent! Untie me! Please spare me!!!! :)

Good naturedly,

Mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

 

Glad to hear it! But can you not see how denying that Mary was Jesus' biological mother could point one down the slippery slope to docetism? After all, if Jesus was/is not 'flesh of our flesh, bone of our bones', if His flesh was not taken from humanity but from somewhere 'other', to what extent can He be said to be truly human as we are?

 

The 'red' above would be a great argument Mike if it had any accuracy in any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary. However, it doesn't. That approach wouldn't even be logical. Catholic theology regarding the sinlessness of Mary has nothing to do with removing the 'sin nature' so Christ would not be polluted with it.

Your theology seems to be that God has no ability to 'restore' nature to its original state of creation by an act of His will. To say that God couldn't use the seed of Mary (so the prophecy is accurate) without Jesus receiving a sin nature places a restriction on the power of God. Do you really mean to imply that God was limited in this way?

Jesus calls himself the "Son of Man" for a reason you know. He is not a separate creation from the rest of humanity. He is a true "Son" of humanity.

 

Apparently a woman's work is never done...well, maybe if you organised yourselves a bit better, dears...

 

In the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" we have the RC argument for Mary (a sinless being like Christ) born of a sinful woman (Mary's Mother).

But the REASON that they "needed that bit of story telling" is that they needed Mary to be a "holy vessel" for carrying God.

So you are right that the RCC found a way for a SINFUL being to give birth to THE SINLESS BEING -- MARY!

in Christ,

Bob

 

In the Dark Ages the RCC came up with many pejorative terms to refer to the beliefs of the saints - prefixing those terms by "the heresy of ....".

Appealing the the pristine judgment of the RCC in the Dark Ages in it's proclivity for assigning pejorative terms as "proof" that a doctrine is false -- is nonsense!

Trying to "cut-and-paste labels" for cases when they happened to identify an actual error -- and apply those labels to anyone today that you happen to disagree with is also pretty silly.

 

To Deny that the term "Mother of God" is EVER used AT ALL in scripture -- is Biblical.

To Deny that such terms as "Stronger than God" and "Wiser than God" and "instructor of God" and "Queen of the Universe" and "Mother of God" should ever be used by Christians because these are NEVER terms EVER used in scripture -- is a good Biblical argument.

To Observe that the Bible DOES call Mary the Mother of Jesus but NEVER calls Mary "the Mother of God the Son" or "the Mother of God the Father" or the "Mother of God the Holy Spirit" is to observe the care and exact correctness of scripture as compared to the erroneous and faulty errors in the traditions of men that have evolved since then.

As EVEN the OP points out Mary IS the Mother of the human nature of Christ for it has it's "beginning" there -- but "God the Son" NEVER had a "beginning" with Mary.

And as the scripture of this subject title points out -- when Mary IS being exaulted before Christ for her BIOLOGICAL role the CORRECT answer as Given by Christ is "ON THE CONTRARY..."

in Christ,

Bob

 

So is Jesus God or not, yes or no?