Jesus Repudiates the Mariolatry Volume III

Calling Mary the Blessed Mother, Mother of God, Blessed Virgin, etc... DOESN'T take away from God. If you believe it does then you're insecure about your beliefs and faith. You should only worry about your salvation and not other people's.

If you don't want to bring such titles on Mary or prayers to her into your world of Christian worship, fine. But please don't ruin it for those who do.

IMHO, you're making a BIG issue out of this when you don't have to. You people are like the Pharoisees - self-centered and overbearing.

You should be loving, considerate, and tolerant. Instead, you follow the Bible like it's everything, and, as I said, have become like the Pharoisees!

It's sad, but you're ver closed-minded and not open to civil discussion so there's no reasoning with you.

 

Mary is not the Mother of God. She did not give birth to God the Father, nor did she give birth to God the Holy Spirit. She was not in heaven when the worlds were framed. Mary is no longer a virgin. She is not a perpetual virgin contrary to the lie that has been taught by the Catholic Church for so many years.

Mary does not cause one to focus on Christ. That is the position of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. "When He is come, He will not testify of Himself, but will remind you all that I have taught you."

John, in his first epistle wrote 'Little children, keep yourselves from idols.'

John saw the need to warn against idols. The Christian should have this same zeal.

Godlywoman, would you rather people not warn your loved ones of the wrath of God for those who lift Mary higher than His Son?

When they stand before God's throne and hear those words 'Depart from me, ye that work iniquity, I never knew you,' they will not have the excuse that they were not warned to keep themselves from idols. They may have the excuse that they did not hear the warning, but if the did not heed the warning, their own idol worship will ruin them.

The Pharisees were guilty of adding their own rules and regulations to God's commands. Those who pray to Mary, or lift her up to the title of Mother of God are just as guilty as the Pharisees.. for they too are adding to the Word of God.

Tolerant? Was Jesus tolerant when He drove the moneychangers out of the temple? Was He tolerant when He saw the necessity to fashion a scourge to chase them out? Tolerance does not mean allow idol worship to be taught and practiced.

If one truly follows the Bible, one is not like the Pharisees. As a matter of fact, one would be far from a Pharisee if one is truly obeying the Word of God.

To be open to the idea that praying to Mary is ok is not civil, as a matter of fact, it is teaching a heretical doctrine that is not of God. It causes an uprising against the Son.

 

I point out that IF this was true - then the Bible writers would have MANY chances to use the "something-something of God" titles in scripture as way to prove that Jesus is God. And they do not do it - even once... because those sayings do NOTHING for the deity of Christ argument - they only exault the human parent or cousin or brother etc.

In fact even the RCC itself is reluctant to toss out terms like "Brother of God" and "Cousin of God"... also terms for Joseph like "stronger than God" and "corrector of God" - basically the old argument "you have to say -- OF GOD - to prove that you think Jesus was the God-Man of scripture" can not even get the RCC to go along with it in all those cases.

Yet if the argument GodlyWoman is making above were true - the NT writers would be pulling out this "someth-of-God" title with every text reference to Christ or his family, friends, associates etc.

But it just isn't there... no not even once.

 

The Bible is our sole source for doctrine and authority. We have no other book to base our doctrine on.

Who said we can't rely on the Bible alone? The doctrine is called "sola scriptura." It means: relying on the Bible alone--only the Scripture. It was practiced all throughout the OT, and by the early believers. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is better to rely on God's inspired words than man's infallible words.
Your illustration falls far short.
My daughter takes piano lessons. Though she is only 14, if she passes this grade in her piano, she is qualified to teach. If she still wants to further her education in music, especially sacred music, she would be well to go to a Christian University which has a good record in that area. What good would it do for her to go back to a four year old who has just plunked on some of the notes on the piano? Can she learn from such a beginner? No. She needs to learn from the Master.
We need to learn from the Master. The Master is Jesus Christ Himself. He wrote the Scriptures. We need to learn from Him.

Where does the Bible say that we should use Catholic Tradition, the Book of Mormon, Watchtower materials, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, The Great Controversy, etc.?

Jesus said:
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Paul said:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Where is the abuse? Show me how I abuse Scripture through the practice of sola scriptura, and I will change.
But if I can show the RCC how they abuse the Bible through their practice of Tradition will they change their beliefs regarding their heretical teachings that contradict the Bible?

And there is much more in the Bible than just one verse.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
--Jesus never used the Talmud, the Mishnah, or any other book of tradition. He always referred to the Scriptures.

 

All you people are doing is spewing Scripture verses. I thought this was a debate thread? Can debate take place sans Scripture verses? Or are you so weak in debate that you have to have Scripture verses? What ever happened to using your heads?

I can quote a lot of Scripture too, but actual debate is what we want.

Spewing 50, 100, 500, 1,000 or more Scripture verses doesn't make you any more right than the next person who does it!

 

This is a Baptist Board. When you joined here what did you expect to find? The first distinctive of a Baptist is that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. All of our doctrine is based on the Bible. If doctrine is not Bible-based then what good is it?

You say you are a teacher, and you claim to be a Christian.
What kind of church do you attend, and if not any what religious background do you have? As you can see, on a Baptist Board you will encounter many Baptists. But on this particular "Other Christian Denominations" Forum, there are a few other participants: Orthodox, SDA, Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, and some others. What we do have in common is the Scriptures. Why do you have a problem with that? If you are a Christian why are you not interested in discussing the Bible?

 

I keep telling you that they didn't have to use Mother of God because that was already known! A given!

 

Why? Because you say it is?

Again, NO WHERE in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole source for docrine and authority. Please give me a Bible verse that reads as follows:

The Bible is the sole source for doctrine and authority.

The Bible DOES'T say that we should use Catholic tradition, but it DOES say this:

2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.

The abuse lies within the fact that NO WHERE in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole authority for doctrine and authority. Again, please give me a Bible verse that reads as follows:

The Bible is the sole source for doctrine and authority.

How does the Catholic Churc abuse the Bible through tradition? They use the following verses to defend tradition:

2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

Again, the Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.

 

iI grduated from a Baptist high school though I am not Baptist. The Baptists at the high school were more open-minded than what I find here. Perhaps that is what I expected to find here?

I'm still growing in my faith. However, as you can probably tell, I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

What I have been giving you is also common sense based on 2,000+ years of Christian tradition, especially fromt he time when Christ left Earth until the actual Scriptures were compiled to form the Bible.

No one said I'm not interested in discussing the Bible. I just don't believe in throwing out verse after verse. That is NOT discussion!

 

Okay, let's try this AGAIN!...

Why is Mary Called 'Mother of God'?

When early Christians read biblical passages about the Incarnation—such as Isaiah's words about the Child who would be called God (see Is 9:5)—they wondered: How exactly was Christ both human and divine? Was he simply God, only appearing to be human? Was he a human to whom God attached himself in a special way, dwelling nside him? Was he partly human and partly divine?

Ultimately, in the light of Scripture and Tradition, the Church concluded that none of the above answers is correct. An ecumenical Church council that helped to resolve the issue (Ephesus, 431) was provoked by a controversy over one particular question: Can we call Mary the "Mother of God?"

One prominent archbishop, Nestorius, rejected the title. He claimed that Christ was two persons — one human, one divine — joined together in Christ. Though Mary was the mother of the human person in Christ, she was not the divine Person (God the Son). So she could not rightly be called Mother of God.

After examining this teaching, however, the Church concluded that Nestorius was mistaken. Christ was not a combination of two persons, one human and one divine. That would be close to saying that he was simply a man to whom God was joined in a uniquely intimate way — a man specially indwelled by God, like one of the biblical Prphets.

Instead, the Church declared, Christ is only one divine Person — the Second Person of the Trinity. This single Person took human nature and joined it to his own divine nature, so that he possesses two natures (Jn 1:1-3, 14). But these natures don't constitute two different persons. They belong to one and the same Person, the divine Son of God. And these two natures, though not to be confused, can't be separated.

In this light, the Curch concluded that not only is it correct to call Mary the Mother of God, but it is important to do so. Mary is the mother of one Person, Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God in the flesh. If we deny that she is the Mother of God, then we are denying that Christ himself is God, come down from Heaven. Truly, as St. Paul declared, "God sent his Son, born of a woman" (Gal 4;4).

RELATED SCRIPTURE —
Lk 1:43
Jn 5:17-18; 8:58; 10:30-33; 20:28
Phil 2:5-8
Col 1:15-19; 2:9-10
2 Pt 1:1
Pv 21:6

 

The council... Ephesus 431...is hogwash.

Nowhere does the Scripture say Mary is the Mother of God. You are bringing in heretical doctrine that was not even taught by the true Church Father's ... the Apostles.

Hebrews declares that God prepared a body for the Son. That body was what was born, Unto us a child is born. The Son was not born... the Son was given. Unto us a Son is given.

To say Mary is the Mother of God is heresy,

 

What can I say? If one is that closed minded and is always going to consider what they say as right over someone else... why continue with this?

 

My doctrine is from the Word of God.

Relying on councils and teachings that are outside the Word of God and do not line up with the Word of God are heresies..

Seems there is a closedmindedness in the thread, but it is not me that is closedminded.

Those who teach Mary is the Mother of God are closing their minds to the truth written in God's Holy Word.

 

No. We aren't! Maybe it'll get through to you this way:

The Scriptural basis of the unity of God, the eternity of the Word and the Incarnation is actually sufficient in itself to arrive at the conclusion that Mary is the Mother of God. God gave us reason and guided by the Holy Spirit the Church comes to an ever deeper penetration of the profound depths of Divine Revelation (Jn 16:13), which being the Word of God cannot be exhausted by a bare-bones literal reading - "if it isn't explicitly in Scripture then it is revealed." By this logic most prophetic matters referring to Christ in the Old Testament could be dismissed because they were hidden in types and presented as shadows. Thus the simple logic of the Church is that if Scripture reveals that Mary is the Mother of the Word-made-Flesh, and the Word-made-flesh is God, then Mary is the Mother of God (the Word), not from eternity of course, but beginning in time and for eternity. To say only that Mary is the Mother of Jesus or only the Mother of Christ, is to subscribe unwittingly to the doctrines of heretics who denied the unity of the Christ's Divine and Human Natures.

But is it in Scripture? Yes, in addition to the above way we find that God reveals to the heart of Elizabeth the truth about the Incarnation, God-made-flesh. When Mary arrives to assist her in her pregnancy with St. John the Baptist, on seeing the Blessed Mother St. Elizabeth declares,

"blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, how is it that the Mother of the Lord (mater tou kyrios) comes to me" (Lk 1:42-43).

In both the first half and the second half of this inspired address mother and child are inseparably united. In the first, Mary and the fruit of her womb, Jesus, are praised. In the second the unity of their relationship is revealed, as well as the unity of Christ. Mary is not merely the mother of Jesus the Messiah, somehow conceived, but the mother of the Lord. The text preserves the Greek, kyrios, although the language that would have been spoken was Aramaic. Among the Jews the name of God was not spoken, but a substitution was made to preserve respect. By convention when translating Hebrew and its sister language Aramaic into Greek, such as in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) used to evangelize Greek-speaking Jews and gentiles, the word substituted for God's name was Kyrios, which we translate as Lord. This was in lieu of I AM, Christ's use of which for Himself would later scandalized the Jews. Elizabeth would never have been so bold, however, instead calling the fruit of Mary's womb, the Lord, with all the meaning which the Jews attributed to it and which the Catholic Church continues to understand of the Word-made-flesh in Mary's womb.

 

The angel Gabriel said "Hail full of grace ... . and Elizabeth said "the mother of my Lord ..." Then Jesus said "behold your mother...

Mary's role flows directly from Christ. She stood at the cross, consented to the immolation of her Son and then received the beloved disciple at Jesus' Words, ‘Woman, behold your son" (Jn 19:26-27). After Jesus' Ascension, she aided the early Church by her prayers and implored the gift of the Spirit who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation.

Mary said that "all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48). From ancient times the Church has honored her as "the Mother of God." The Church has special devotion to Mary which differs essentially from the adoration given to the Trinity. Her liturgical feasts and the rosary ("the epitome of the whole Gospel") express this devotion.

 

Back up a little bit in the verse and you will find that the Lord existed before Mary gave birth. Mary had told the angel 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord.'

The Lord existed before Mary even walked the earth. He stated in the Gospels, 'Before Abraham was, I AM.'

Mary was not the Mother of God, as He existed before Mary existed. God was not given birth by a human.

 

Did you NOT read post #76? Are you just going to ignore that and not respond to it all together? I want to discuss that, but if you'rejust going to ignore all that without giving your view so that I can respond in an effort to debate on that then... I'm disappointed.

 

Jesus spoke only to one disciple when He said 'Behold thy mother' while on that cross. He was not speaking to everyone.

In another passage, someone told Him His mother was outside. He asked who is my mother?


Mark 3:32-35 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Mary was not even there... now, was she? He stated everyone who did the will of the Father was His mother and brother and sister. He pointed out others who were recognized by Him as His mother... not Mary.

Mary was only a willing vessel... nothing more. Not to be exalted, worshipped or prayed to.