Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

Do spare me the word games DHK, every Independent Baptist Church I’ve been a member of from Tennessee to Indiana has had a council (or whatever name floats your boat) made up of not only elected deacons, but other elected delegates. Once a month they would meet, they would add to their statement of faith if that statement were weak; they would vote on membership status, to revoke or accept. They would also amend their Constitution if needed.

Councils are Biblical and necessary as we see the first Council held in Jerusalem in the Book of Acts.

Well then maybe you should redirect your Critical Thinking Skills and google Nestorius, Nestorianism or the Third Ecumenical Council. Then answer the following question.

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

First, I have been a member of various Independent Baptist Churches for the past 30 some years.
Second, as a missionary I have traveled from the Pacific to the Atlantic in both Canada and the U.S. visiting IFB churches in most of the Provinces and States all along the way.
Third, I don't like to be called a liar. You are wrong. With your limited knowledge of IFB churches you act like an authority on them, but are absolutely wrong. There are no IFB councils. Don't call me a liar, and tell me that I know nothing about wherof I speak. The very word "Independent" implies that there are no councils. They are all independent churches, independent one from another. Learn that. There are no councils.

Don't bear false witness, as pertains to the IFB churches.
As pertaining to the Book of Acts that was a one-time historical event, and it was not a "church council." The "apostles" met, not the churches met. Show me through Scripture where the churches me to have a church council. There is no such thing, and Acts 15 was not a church council. The Apostles met to make a decision concerning the action of some Judaizers. It was held at one church, the church of Jerusalem of which James was the Pastor. James made the final decision. There was not a consensus, a dialogue, etc. James heard the witnesses. They prayed. James made the decision.

Why should I? I told you that you couldn't put me in a box. I refuse to be put into anyone's box. My rule of faith and doctrine is the Bible. I am a Biblicist. I believe in Sola scriptura, not in the BCF's, the Bungling Church Father's.

Mary was used of God as a vessel to bring forth the body of Christ, and nothing more.
At the same time Christ never gave up his deity. He was always God, and always will be. Mary should be given no special status for being used of God at that point in time in history, as God could have used another person or even another means to bring Christ into the world.

 

And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God: That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Jeremiah 11:3-5

"this" covenant... are we cursed? Are you concerned with "Thus saith the Lord"? If so why aren't you under the Old Covenant? Why aren't you keeping the Sabbath?

Is God 'mutable'? Does God 'change' His mind?

Books don't 'speak' for themselves. They convey concepts which need interpretation 'especially' if those concepts are conveyed in cryptic tongues and ancient idioms.

The Jews read the Scriptures and yet they didn't understand it pointed to Jesus as the Christ or Isaiah as John the Baptist. They took these types and figures too literally and thus 'missed the mark'.

There is a consensual teaching of this 'exegesis' within the Church if we but look for it. We can see this consensual teaching throughout the History of Christianity. It's real and discernible in the New Testament, the works of the Early Church Fathers, the Councils. This Golden Measure (i.e. Canon) is a necessary ingredient for interpreting God's word correctly and it was not kept with the Jews nor with Heretics who twisted the Golden Measure (i.e. Canon) into their own traditions of men.

I'm not here to convince you but I am here to say that you are using a tradition or exegesis to establish a emphasis of one biblical teaching with another. This exegesis is a product of the Reformation and that of the Enlightenment and although I, personally, find much of it admirable and salvific must call into question the notion that you or another 'speak for God' when you or another 'quote Scripture' to proof-text some of these teachings which you hold dear which find little or no basis in the Apostolic Tradition of the Early Church.

It doesn't elevate her Flesh but as I pointed out earlier Elizabeth pointed out what is truly blessed with Mary... her obedience to the Will of God to bring forth His Son and our Saviour. It wasn't Mary's Flesh that was blessed but the indwelling of the Creator was surely the most intimate participation in Providence which anyone, except our Lord played in our redemption.

To 'believe' something cannot be 'slander'. To claim something as a fact when it is not is. I have not claimed anything except what I believe. If I am in error, it is your responsibility to correct the error in kindness.

If as you say, Christ was God in the Flesh. Then it cannot be an error to call Mary "Theotokos" (i.e. God-Bearer) for truly she did 'bear God', period.

To deny this is to call into question the identity of our Lord and Saviour.

Would you prefer Christokos (i.e. Christ-Bearer)? If so, why the distinction between our Lord and God? Is not our Lord one and the same? Where the Son is, is not the Father also present? Where the Holy Ghost dwells can we not also find the Son? Is the Will of God in conflict or in confusion?

 

I am not an Israelite, neither am I under any covenant given to the nation of Israel. You make no sense.

This isn't a thread on the trinity. If you want to start one, then so be it. The Catholic (or Orthodox) cannot lay claim to the discovery of the doctrine of the trinity. Such a claim is absurd!! The doctrine of the trinity is clearly taught in the NT. The apostles believed it. They believed the Father. They believed that Christ was deity, and many times affirmed it to be so. They believed that the Holy Spirit was deity, as Peter says in Acts 5 when he accuses Annias of lying against the Holy Spirit and against God in almost the same breath. At the same time they believed that there was only one God. One can only come to the conclusion and no other conclusion, that they believed in the trinity. You don't have to believe that; but I do.

Some did, and some didn't. They were not all as "dumb" as you portray them to be.

It was Jews who came up with a canon of Scripture. They had a complete canon by 400 B.C. One of the stipulations of the OT canon was that no book of the OT could be written after that date. That, of course, excludes the entire apocrypha. The Jews never did accept them.
It was Jewish Christians that wrote and completed the NT canon. I don't believe the councils of the RCC had any part of its "canonization," but that rather the apostles and the early churches knew what books were inspired and which books were not inspired as they were being written. Jesus promised them that they would be led "into all truth." That is what that verse means. The Holy Spirit would direct them into all the truth that God would have them to write in the Scriptures.

You are absolutely wrong. The Catholics and others rely on tradition. I don't. I go by the Bible alone. It is my sole source of authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. I don't rely on any traditon.

The ECF don't have or hold authority over the inspired Word of God. If you want the truth then study the Word of God. Jesus said: "you do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God." Take counsel in that Scripture.
Paul said: Study to show thyself approved unto God.
He didn't say: "Study to show thyself approved unto the ECF," as you seem to think. Are you trying to re-write Scriptures at this point?

And so?? God blessed Mary. God blesses many people. Why elevate Mary to such a superior status. It is unnecessary. She was still a sinner in need of a Saviour. Recognize that fact.

When I have repeatedly posted truth, and you come and say that I believe the opposite of what I have posted, what do you think I should call it? Ignorance or slander? Which is it?

Google "theotokos." Find out the truth about this heretical doctrine. If it is the truth then why is it only accepted by the Eastern Orthodox church and not mainline Christianity? Why all of a sudden did it appear when the Orthodox church appear, and no Christian believed in it before that time? Doctrines that are germane to only one religion are usually called cultish and usually define a cult.
God did not have a mother!

You are sadly mistaken.

As I have repeatedly said to Agnus, I refuse to be put into someone else's box. I have said to you plainly the truth. Why do you have trouble accepting it. Here are the facts for the umpteenth time.
Christ is fully God and fully man at the same time.
At no time in all of eternity did Christ ever lose his deity.
There were times in his earthly ministry where Christ laid aside his divine attributes, thus he thirsted, hungered, etc.
As pertaining to Mary, she was used of God to provide a vessel for the God-man to enter into this world, and that is all. She is not the mother of God.

Now is that so hard to accept?

 

Christ didn’t “lay aside” His Divinity to submit to His human nature…i.e. to hunger or thirst. Christ is fully God and fully man, perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His humanity. Christ’s two (2) natures were joined together in the Incarnation without mixture, division, or confusion.

As a result to Christ being fully God and fully man, Christ has two wills, one human will and one Divine will to which the human will is submitted to, therefore Christ never “laid aside” His Divinity to experience His humanity. His humanity submitted to his Divinity to which Christ was sinless.

Christ has two natures yet Christ remains one person, on hypostasis. The Theotokos safeguards Christ’s Divinity and humanity and thus Mary id God-bearer

You’re trying to invent your own interpretation of the Incarnation and thus skating on the very thin ice of heresy.

Show the class DHK what the Early ‘Baptist’ fathers taught concerning the Incarnation of Christ in regard to His two natures.

Because your view is shallow and theologically inept.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Do you misquote me for a reason? Did I ever once say that he laid aside his divinity? No, I did not say that at all. In fact I did say that at all times, throughout all eternity he was and is God, never giving up his deity. So who are you quoting? It is not me. And if you are falsely quoting me then provide the quote.

What I said is that Christ sometimes laid aside his divine attributes
There is a big difference. I have explained this to you many times. He went to the cross willingly of his own accord. He could have used his divine attribute of omnipotence to call down 24,000 angels. But he didn't. He went to the cross instead. He laid aside his omnipotence even when he could have used it, and submitted himself to the will of his Father.
I think this is the third of fourth time that I have explained this to you, but the ears are dull of hearing, aren't they?

 

Not arguing....just a few questions...

Where did you come up with that "stipulation"? Is it written in the OT? Is it written anywhere in history at all?

Which Jews are you talking about? The Palestinian Jews? The Sadducees? The Pharisees? The Essenes? Or the Jews of the Dispersion? The Ethiopian Jews, perhaps?

Are you sure Luke was Jewish?

 

LUKE

(luminous). Writer of the Gospel of Luke and of the book of Acts; companion of Paul. "Luke, to whom this Gospel has been uniformly attributed from the earliest ages of the Christian church, is generally allowed to have been `the beloved physician' mentioned by Paul (Colossians 4:14) and as he was the companion of that Apostle, in all his labors and sufferings, for many years (Acts 16:12; Acts 20:1-6; Acts 27:1-2; Acts 28:13-16; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:25), and wrote `the Acts of the Apostles,' which concludes with a brief account of St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, we may be assured that he had the Apostle's sanction to what he did; and probably this Gospel was written some time before that event, about A.D. 63 or 64, as is generally supposed. He would appear, from Colossians 4:10-11, and his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, as well as from his Greek name (Lucas), to have been of Gentile extraction; and according to Eusebius and others, he was a native of Antioch. From the Hebraisms occurring in his writings, and especially from his accurate knowledge of the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and customs, it is highly probable that he was a Jewish proselyte, and afterwards converted to Christianity.

Way of Life Encyclopedia

 

It is common information found in most OT Survey books, or Intros. For example:

The Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes were all sects that appeared after the canon of Scripture (OT) was finalized. All these came about during the intertestamental period--after the writing of the Book of Malachi and before the coming of Christ.

 

:applause:

Thought you'd never ask -- I do keep Sabbath.

In Isaiah 66 in the New Earth "from Sabbath Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship".

And you are right about one thing - it is because I DO care about "thus saith the Lord" over tradition.:applause:

in Christ,

Bob

 

So according to that Colossians passage (4:10-14) was Luke listed among those who were "of the Circumcision", or not?

 

But are there any primary sources for this alleged stipulation?

Did they all recognize the same canon--yes or no? If not, which Jews do we go with?
And what about the Jews of the Dispersion? Does their opinion of the canon bear any weight? If not, why?

 

Joseph may have picked Christ up - or instructed Christ -- "The INSTRUCTOR OF GOD"??

Mary may have lifted something too heavy for the infant Christ "STONGER THAN GOD???"

Joseph and Mary may have taught the infant lessons of life -- how to tie a knot etc .

"WISER than GOD"???

The RCC would have us believe that using such terms does NOT exault the HUMAN parent in that case but reminds us that Christ is God... yet anyone with a modest grasp of reason and logic INSTANTLY sees that this is exaulting the human parent NOT Christ! The result -- images of Mary - holding a TINY Jesus. The focus is clearly on Mary!

The result - prayers to God asking HIM to intercede WITH MARY for the living.

This is just one reason why NO NT AUTHOR uses terms like "MOTHER of GOD".

The other reason is that the "mother of God" statement conveys JUST as much pure error as -

"WISER than GOD"
"STronger than GOD"
"Corrector of GOD"
"Instructor of GOD"
"QUEEN of HEAVEN"

 

You either do not understand the point or you are using misdirection here.

The point was stated repeatedly that there is no "BIOLOGICAL pathway to God".

In other words - no amount of biochemistry results in "God".

The issue is not whether an intimate act took place - the issue is that BIOLOGY alone could never account for the result being INFINITE GOD - so from a purely biological "LIFE" context -- this PERSON was not procreated.

This is a UNIQUE case where a LIVING PERSON -- in this case God the SON was ALREADY in existence and was INCARNATED -- RATHER than PROCREATED so that what WAS God the SON-- became Christ the GOD-MAN.

With the human nature being NEW - but the GOD nature PRE-EXISTING

Certainly we can agree that the human nature was derived purely from a biological pathway. No question there -- but BIOLOGY did not account for GOD Himself!

Your attempt to equivocate between EVE "the MOTHER of mankind" and Mary "MOTHER of GOD" using PROCREATION terms for each -- stands out to the objective unbiased reader as logically unsound.

Probably worked well in the dark ages -- but I don't know how anyone goes for it today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[FONT=&quot]
Gleason Archer, in his book, "A Survey of OT Introduction, quotes from Josephus. The quote is above. He states that there are only 22 books in the OT canon. Those 22 books correspond to the 39 books of our English Bible, because of their arrangement in combining certain books together. All 12 minor prophets for example were considered as one book. Josephus also states that no canonical book was written since the time of Malachi.
[/FONT]

All orthodox Jews to this day recognize the Masoretic Text as their canon of Scripture. That has never changed, and there has never been any dispute about that. The only ones that use anything that was different were those that didn't understand Hebrew very well, and used a translation of the MT such as we do in English, and the Greeks of that day used the Septuagint.

 

All Jews, including the apostles were "of the circumcision." But that is not a term used for a Christian, even one who was a Jew. So if Luke was circumcised, your question is still irrelevant.

 

Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Here, we see the trinity manifested. The Father speaking from the heavens, the Holy Spirit descending, and the Son of whom the witness is given