1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by D28guy, Dec 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    :applause: :thumbs:
     
  2. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Not sure where you get this from his post?!
    Why, then, were Nicaea I and Constantinople I necessary?

    But apparently both based on sola Scriptura

    Really? And which book of the OT claims that?
    Not quite. The Jews of the Jamnia school rejected the Apocrypha after 80AD because it was written in Greek, not because it wasn't canonical.
    Proof, please.

    The doctrine is not just held by the EOC but also by the RCC; Anglicans and Lutherans in reality hold to it as well although not as an official dogma. How much more mainline do you want to go?

    Good.
    Fine.
    Yep.
    Bzzt! Wrong! How on earth can you make the above statements and not believe the theotokos doctrine?!!

    It's impossible to accept! You're position is wholly illogical. "It's theology, Jim, but not as we know it."
     
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    So, not ethnically Jewish but a Gentile proselyte.
     
  4. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    So. No-one is actually going to answer my question about I John 5:5-8? Interesting...
     
  5. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Matt,

    DHK said...

    And you said...

    So, we can only conclude that you believe that Mary CREATED Christs Godness? Mary CREATED God? Even though Christ was God when He created the world at the beginning? Are you sure you want to go there?

    Because DHK understands the context of Mary being Christs mother, and the limitations of her "motherness* regarding Christ. She gave birth to Him, she took care of Him as He grew. That is where her mother role ends.

    She was the vessel God used to bring Christ into this world physically, but she had no part in creating His "Godness".

    Christ created Mary, not the other way around.

    God bless,

    Mike
     
  6. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    Matt,

    Its been clearly answered, by myself and others.

    Do you have "eyes to see", and "ears to hear"?

    Mike
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    No, because that's not that the theotokos doctrine means; it literally means 'God-bearer' and means that Mary bore Christ, God the Son, within her womb and gave birth to Him, as any other mother does - unless you're saying that she didn't give birth to Jesus Christ - are you sure you want to go there?




    And the title of theotokos does not contradict this
     
  8. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    No it hasn't. I asked a simple question: is there a Greek manuscript dating from before the 16th century to back up the claim that this particular version of I John is authentic? Yes or no?

    Now will someone please give me an answer to that question, not an answer to a question they'd rather I'd asked....
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    #1."MOTHER of GOD" means more than "carrying Christ".
    #2. Using terms like
    "Bearer of God"
    "Instructor of God"
    "Wiser than God"
    "Stronger than God"
    "Protector of God"
    "Corrector of God"

    ALL of the terms "YES ALL" of the terms exault the human parent NOT Christ.

    That is why they are NEVER used in scripture!!

    Which is why this dicussion comes up only in the context of a DEPARTURE from scripture!

    Such terms innevitably lead to ...

    1. PRAYERS to GOD to intercede with MARY on our behalf
    2. Mary "allpowerful like God"
    3. Images with Mary as the main focus holding a TINY Jesus
    4. Prayers to the DEAD
    5. "MARY QUEEN of HEAVEN" and God "KING of Heaven"

    etc.

    Hard to miss the point.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    As pointed out above -- I don't think this "mother of God" business could ever have been succesfully launched outside of the Dark Ages.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I disagree; 'bearer of God' does not inevitably lead to the above. It doesn't for me as an Anglican and doesn't for most Anglicans or Lutherans come to that. It is a 100% factually accurate description and therefore is quite properly used.
     
  12. bound

    bound New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grace and peace BobRyan,

    This was dogmatically established by the Council of Ephesus in 430 A.D.

    Unfortunately, most Protestants have adopted "mother of our Lord" but I question what we mean when we say Lord?
     
  13. Agnus_Dei

    Agnus_Dei New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    To add to Matt's response...

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

    From whom did the Word, the same Word that was from the beginning, obtain flesh?

    The Word from the beginning is fully Divine, the Word obtaining flesh is fully human. The term Theotokos safeguards against heretics that want to minimize Christ’s humanity or His Divinity.

    Therefore, the term Theotokos is more about Jesus Christ than it is about Mary. The term Theotokos in no way suggests that Mary existed before all eternity or that Mary gave birth to God the Father.

    ICXC NIKA
    -
     
  14. bound

    bound New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you see how saying this could lead someone to believe that you are saying 'the body of the Son' didn't contain the actual Godhead? If 'the body of the Son' dwelt within Mary then our 'God' dwelt within Mary (for nine months I might add).

    How do you know this? How else could God reconcile Man but to take upon Himself the very Nature He sought to redeem?

    You also are trying very hard to distance or discredit someone whom God, Himself, found favor... Blessed (favored of God) are you before all other women!

    You argue in a previous post... so what she's blessed. Are we blessed also? But I would reply that although we might be justified we don't always find favor (blessings) with God due to our unruliness. Often are we chastised for our offenses and often do we pour His wrath upon ourselves for our neglect. Mary was and is a humble obedient servent of the Lord. Does this mean that she was somehow 'perfect'? No, we see many examples of our imperfection in the Scriptures but we still most recognize her as a very special creature of God. You argue that if she was not available then our Lord would have manifest in another... but He didn't. He came and dwelt in her (for nine months the Godhead dwelt intimately within Her).

    What does Light have to do with Darkness? Can the Godhead dwell in Sin? What did the dwelling of God in the Ark of the Covenant do to the container? Was it made holy (set apart for the purpose of the Lord)? If someone even 'touched' the Ark what happened to them? What about the Holy of Holies in the Temple? What reverence was given to these two examples of 'a holy dwelling place of the Lord'?

    What then of Mary?

    Even Samuel's bones restored life due to the favor Samuel had with the Lord. How much more favor did Mary have being the instrument of God's entering His Creation?

    God's Grace and Glory dwell in and participate in our lives but it isn't 'a have or have not' situation but one 'of degrees'....

    We know this through the Scriptures because Mary herself was 'most favored among women' the 'Mother of our Lord'...

    What does Lord mean to you? Clearly Mary is not the progenitor of the Godhead but she was the Gate of Flesh which the Godhead entered to achieved our Salvation.

    I really honestly believe you are hedging.
     
  15. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    Theotokos is not more about Jesus than it is of Mary. Theotokos means 'God-bearer,' 'the one who gives birth to God,' and 'mother of God.' The emphasis is put on Mary, not Jesus. The focus is on her, lifting her up as the 'God-bearer'.

    Theotokos is not found in the Word of God. It is a term subtly planted in the minds of those who want to worship Mary. Satan has deceived them into this idolatry. It is not of God.
     
    #115 standingfirminChrist, Dec 12, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2007
  16. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Not quite - theotokos means 'God-bearer' not 'Mother of God'; look up the Greek.
     
  17. bound

    bound New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grace and Peace,

    Although you are my elder and I respect your conviction I know that the Scriptures acknowledge Mary as 'Mother of our Lord'. If our Lord isn't God then we have truly Blasphemed as the Jews and Muslims accuse us of doing when we 'worship' Jesus Christ as God.

    I honestly believe this notion is a product of a slow decoupling of our Lord from His unity in the Trinity as one God. Once we start down the road of distinctions between our Lord and God we begin to separate or divide the unity of the Godhead.

    We've seen this with Arius and Nestorius and Muslims. I honestly don't believe we should budge from this Dogma of the Council of Ephesus. It was determined by consensus of the Christian Church in 430 AD to combat errors I see no reason to deny it today.

    I do say with with all due respect to you and DHK. I have a great deal of respect for both of you and I don't question your sincerity. I believe you hold these views because you've been taught them in your Baptist Tradition and believe them to be truly the proper interpretation of God's word but I disagree.

    I understand that such disagreement can't be tolerated on a Baptist Board as it contradicts what is seen as the Baptist Distinctives (what makes up the Baptist Identity) so I honestly believe you have to refute this but I simply can't deny the unity of our Lord with God nor His Divine Nature with His Human Nature nor His Will in union with the Will of God. Just as 'a virgin birth' is a mystery of our Faith, the Incarnation will remain a mystery but the fact remains... Mary bore Jesus Christ, God made Flesh! Holy Theotokos is an apt title for Her.
     
  18. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    :applause: :thumbs: again!
     
  19. bound

    bound New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it is fair to say that one can be Protestant and still be an orthodox adherent of the consensual teachings of the Historic Christian Church.
     
  20. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    To my mind, the two should go together: Doubting Thomas' signature, where he quotes +John Cosins, for me says it all: "Protestant and reformed, according to the principles of the ancient catholic church":thumbs:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...