Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

If its a such a good question why not answer it Bob?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

God-man or Theanthropos, doesn’t mean that Christ is half God and half man, nor is Christ a hybrid of the two. Rather, Christ is fully God and fully man, perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His humanity. Christ’s two natures were joined together in the Incarnation without mixture, division, or confusion. As a result of being fully God and fully man, Christ has two wills, one human and one Divine will to which the human one is submitted. Christ has two natures yet Christ remains one person, on hypostasis.

See the above explanation…

The angel Gabriel seemed to have thought more of Mary than simply a vessel in which God was going to “use” and discard after His purpose was done.

DHK, the word Theotokos doesn’t claim that Mary gave Deity to Christ!?! Theotokos doesn’t claim that Mary existed with God before the foundations of the world. That’s not what the word Theotokos is claiming.

Theotokos, the most literally correct translation is Birth-giver to God or God bearer. Mary GAVE BIRTH to the Word.

Do you agree or disagree?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

I thought I did --

Jesus was INCARNATED not PROCREATED.

Those who use procreation terms to exault Mary - are in fact diminishing the INCARNATION.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Just so I understand, you agree with the term Theotokos as defined by the Third Ecumenical Council?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

I have explained my position. Why don't you believe me. Actually you don't even understand what I have said by your response to me. Christ is fully God and fully man. He always has been God and always will be God, and no time gave up his deity.

Do I agree that Mary gave birth to the Word? No, I do not. Do I agree that Mary is "the birth-giver of God or the God-bearer. No, that is heresy.
God chose Mary (not the other way around), as a vessel to be used by Him and to provide a body for Christ to become man. Mary was not sinless. She was a simple person used of God to bring Christ into this world, and that is all. Why are you intent on complicating something so simple, unless, of course, it is your goal in worshiping that which God has clearly forbidden and you are trying to find excuses for doing so.

 

Even easier - I agree with INCARNATION and oppose all doctrines that try to spin this back to PROCREATION as if Mary IS GOD giving birth to GOD.

It is not an "accident" that no Bible author calls Mary "Mother of God" or "Queen of Universe" or "Sinless like Christ" or a product of "immaculat conception".

It is not accident that not even ONE prays to Mary - not even ONE calls her "Mother of God" or "God's Mother".

Even more telling NOT one of them says in passing "God has a Mother".

Hint:

Why was Jesus INCARNATED instead of PROCREATED?

Because - there is no biology that results in "GOD".

in Christ,

Bob

 

In the beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh...

How DHK, did the Word become flesh?

It was through Mary that the Word became flesh...Mary gave birth to the Word...to think or believe otherwise is heresy.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Have I or does the ecumenical Councils claim that Mary is God? Just b/c Mary gives birth to the Word in the flesh, doesn't elevate Mary to God or Godness status. If anything the word Theotokos protects Christ's Divinity and Human natures. The term is a safeguard against heresys past, present and future.

To be technical the Bible doesn’t use the word Theotokos…guess what Bob, neither does the Bible use the word Trinity.

But yet you don’t have a problem with the Ecumenical Councils defining the word Trinity do you?

And how do you know that no one ever asked Mary to pray for them in the NT? Doesn't Paul say that we should pray for each other and to seek the prayers of others? I would say that many people not only asked Paul, Peter or John to pray for them, but also Mary.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Read the entire gospel. At every point Christ was in control. He alone is sovereign. John emphasizes this point in every chapter of his gospel. Christ is the sovereign God that is in control of all things at all times. The soldiers were sent to arrest him but could not for his time had not yet come.

Paul says that Christ came "in the fulness of time." At the right time; at His time; at the appointed time. It was always Christ that was in control--not Mary.

Mary was but a vessel that was used by God to bring Christ into this world. She is in no way the mother of God, the pre-incarnate Word.

 

I don't think you have a clear understanding of the term Theotokos, but it's not your fault

Not to say that Mary had control of Christ, but didn't Mary seek out Christ when the wine ran low at the wedding and didn't Christ say something to the effect that His time had not yet to come, but didn't Christ act on His Mother's request anyway and turn water to wine?

The term Theotokos doesn't seek to elevate Mary to God or even suggest that Mary had control of Christ.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

I know what the term means. I was the one that gave you the definitions, remember? It is exclusively an Eastern Orthodox term or concept far outside the realm of mainstream Christianity. That much has already been established. Just with that much information alone we can fairly well conclude that it is heresy for the rest of Christianity has rejected it.

Concerning the wedding at Cana. Note:
Mary never requested anything. She came to Jesus and made the statement: "They have no wine." It was a statement, perhaps in hopes that Jesus would do something about it. She never did request him to do anything. But Christ is omniscient. He knew her heart. And thus replied (putting her in her rightful place):
Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
She was not his mother. He had no mother. He was God. He addressed her as woman, telling her that he must be about His Father's work. She was no longer the Father's appointed guardian for him while he was a child. She was no longer the "acting mother." God has no mother. He would turn the water into wine inspite of what Mary said.

 

Well, my little syllogism has been penetrated. He says Mary was not the mother of Jesus. Therefore I guess it follows that Mary is not the mother of God.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Even easier - I agree with INCARNATION and oppose all doctrines that try to spin this back to PROCREATION as if Mary IS GOD giving birth to GOD.

That is the "spin" but it makes no sense at all.

If BIOLOGY is not an avenue to producing God - then Mary can not be the mechanism only GOD can be the source and so this is INCARNATION not PROCREATION.

God was INCARNATED not PROCREATED.

God was not "born" (PROCREATED) God was INCARNATE in the Messiah.

Mary is the biological pathway for the HUMAN nature of Christ - but BIOLOGY is not the pathway for God. ONLY in something like INCARNATION -- taking God ALREADY alive and existing and placing Him IN human flesh can you get - God MAN.

MARY did not take God and place Him in Human flesh -- God did.

To call Mary "MOTHER of God" is to credit Mary INSTEAD of God in the act of incarnation.

To Call Mary the "Mother of Christ" "Mother of the Messiah" is to emphasize the "biology" of Christ and of Mary. By definition the terms limit themselves to the biological pathway in the Incarnation which does not "produce God" only God produces God so it is a union of both the "Biology" and the God pathways that get you to the God-man Jesus Christ. No need to place Mary in the role of God as if doing that is "helping Christ" or helping God in some way.

The excuse often given for exaulting Mary to this "God-role" in the incarnation is in the form of claiming that this helps us know Christ as God-man -- in fact all it does is diminish the INCARNATION aspect and exault Mary to a God-like status such that "Co-redeemer" - "Co-Mediatrix" - "Queen of Heaven" and "Fourth person of the Deity" become natural discussions to have in that context. The result is a "very large focus on Mary -- holding a very tiny Jesus"

In fact it either places Mary in the Role of GOD OR it diminishes the birth of Christ to something that CAN be accomplished by biology alone - and we know it is impossible for biology to be the pathway to GOD.

This is why Bible authors NEVER use terms like "Mother of God" or "Queen of the Universe" or "Sinless like Christ" or "Allpowerful like Christ" and it is why no NT author records ANYONE ever praying to Mary.

in Christ,

Bob

 

So, are you therefore saying that she didn't bear God the Son in her womb?

 

Certainly sounds like it, unless we get a retraction. Don't hold your breath though....

[ETA - maybe DHK's true vocation lies in the Assyrian Church! Hmmm...Baptist to Nestorian]

 

The fact that many here believe God the Son to have been INCARNATED instead of procreated ends the argument in favor of mariolotry before it gets started.

That is why there is no "Mother of God" titles actually found in scripture.

 

I'm not sure that the Incarnation negates the concept of Theotokos; if anything it affirms it. I'm not sure I understand your argument here, Bob.

 

"Mother of GOD" is a PROCREATION term like "Mother of humans" for Eve -- not an "incarnation term".

Once we agree to INCARNATION (taking the already EXISTing Son of God fully formed fully mature and transferring/transforming Him to a God-man instance as an act of God -- NOT biology) - then "Mother of the Messiah" makes sense but God still "has no Mother" for He is fully formed and fully existant BEFORE Mary.

The RCC sought to cloud that issue by using PROCREATION terms with Mary when it comes to GOD.

All this did is result in images of a very LARGE emphasis on Mary holding a very TINY Jesus. Indeed the MOTHER of God was given equality WITH GOD .. "co redemptrix" "Co Mediatrix" - "Sinless like Christ" - "QUEEN of the Universe" with God the Father as "KING of the Universe"

Praying that GOD would INTERCEDE with Mary on our behalf!!

Pretty sad really.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I'm still not sure I follow your logic, Bob: Mary bore God the Son in he womb and gave birth to Him, therefore it correctly follows from that as surely as night follows day that she is ascribed the title Theotokos. God the Son's pre-existant nature and the supernatural miracle of His conception do not alter that.

 

Blessings to you Matt this Nativity season…and what a blessing its been to discuss the Theotokos.

There is no logic to Bob’s statement, hence the reason I asked him to answer the questions I directed to DHK. Bob thinks he can agree with us in one sense, yet on his own terms he moves the goal posts and introduces “procreation”, as if Mary had to have sexual relations in order to actually be a “Mother”.

Yet as you point out, and St. Luke’s Gospel affirms, Mary shall conceive in her womb and bring forth a son…How Mary asked: The Holy Spirit shall come upon her.

The logic is simple, Mary bore a “son” and as you Matt, Bob, DHK and myself…as sons, we have Mothers. That “son” that Mary bore was the Word made flesh…hence we have the term Theotokos…meaning God bearer.

ICXC NIKA
-