Mary, the mother of God

[aspen]

* [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Following through with logic is an important step in determining the reasonableness and truth of doctrine. Declaring that Mary is merely the mother of Jesus, the man, denies His divinity. According to the Incarnation of Christ, a doctrine accepted by Catholic and Protestant Christians, Christ is fully human and fully God. In addition, according to the doctrine, you cannot separate the two. This means that referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus means the same thing as calling her the mother of God. [/FONT]

 

[wwjd_kilden]

I'm neutral here, so I'm gonna sit down and enjoy the discussion

one question though: by what definition do you use mother?

 

[phil36]

Of course, that is following your logic. Is God just logic aspen?

And yes protestants believe Mary to be honoured but she is not divine herself,

Jesus says himself there is none Good not one, and that includes His earthly mum, shes was in need of salvation just like us and just like his brothers.

I like how you imply, that if you say Mary is just the Mother of Jesus than you are saying that he is not divine.

I do like your loaded and one way statements aspen. Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, so you could say she is the mother of God incarnate the second person of the trinity.

Of coursde I do like how you open your statement.. 'reasonableness and truth of doctrine' what doctrine are you talking about. are you now saying that Romanist doctrine is only reasonable. for the romanist church their dogmas etc are infallible?


Mary certainly was the mother of Jesus and she is honoured no one would doubt that, but I certainly know where you are trying to lead your heavily loaded statement.

Kind regards

Phil

 

[phil36]

I'm neutral here, so I'm gonna sit down and enjoy the discussion

one question though: by what definition do you use mother?

He is using loaded language read his statement slowly and you will see where aspen wants the conversation to go.

Next up we will be getting the Marianne dogmas.

Phil

 

[aspen]

I'm neutral here, so I'm gonna sit down and enjoy the discussion

one question though: by what definition do you use mother?

Well, I think of a mother a female who either gives birth to, or raises a child.

 

[aspen]

He is using loaded language read his statement slowly and you will see where aspen wants the conversation to go.

Next up we will be getting the Marianne dogmas.

Phil

this thread is a response to the many inaccurate statements about Catholic doctrine on the "Are Catholics Christian?"

I am not sure why you believe that I have some evil agenda here, Phil. Do you struggle with paranoia?

Once again, I could careless if you believe in the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary - it has nothing to do with your salvation.

 

[lesnes]

I agree Phill, the Bible doesn t give reference to Mary being divine in anyway!

 

[phil36]

Hi lesnes, nice to see you joining CC.

phil

 

[aspen]

Kind regards

I think I am missing the kindness in your regard....

1. Of course, that is following your logic. Is God just logic aspen?

What does this question have to do with anything?

2. Jesus says himself there is none Good not one, and that includes His earthly mum, shes was in need of salvation just like us and just like his brothers.

Mary is in Heaven - she has been completely justified and sanctified by Jesus - she is without sin, because there is no sin in Heaven. She is now Good - just like humans before the Fall.

3. And yes protestants believe Mary to be honored but she is not divine herself.

Yep - that is something Catholics and Protestants agree on.

4. Jesus says himself there is none Good not one, and that includes His earthly mum, shes was in need of salvation just like us and just like his brothers.

Catholics teach that Jesus' whole family needed a Savior - including Mary.

5. I like how you imply, that if you say Mary is just the Mother of Jesus than you are saying that he is not divine.

I am glad you liked it - but it was far from an implication - it is a logical fact.

6. I do like your loaded and one way statements aspen. Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, so you could say she is the mother of God incarnate the second person of the trinity.

Ok. However, I could also call her the mother of God.

7. Of course I do like how you open your statement.. 'reasonableness and truth of doctrine' what doctrine are you talking about? Are you now saying that Catholic doctrine is only reasonable. for the RCC their dogmas etc are infallible?

Well, you got me there Phil! I supposed all my creditability just evaporated because I accidentally used the words reasonable and truth instead of infallible! If this is the best response you can come up with, I think you better stop now.

8 Mary certainly was the mother of Jesus and she is honored no one would doubt that, but I certainly know where you are trying to lead your heavily loaded statement.

ok. So, my statements are either loaded or based on a misinterpretation of scripture; always an insidious attempt to undermined the truth of the gospel and lead younger Christians astray.

Never simply an idea I am interested in talking about or an attempted to straighten out disinformation that is being spread about my church by you, kujo, humblesaint, and Keith....

You know, I am even starting to wonder if you really do not "like" my statements as much as you claim to.

 

[aspen]

Here's a question - what is 'loaded language"?

 

[phil36]

Ok maybe I jumped in too quick aspen.. So, tell us what does the Romanist church believe about Mary/Marianne dogmas?. As it would be interesting to know from an RC.

Kind regards

Phil

 

[phil36]

And you asked what loaded language/statement was::

"""a loaded/statement question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny"""

Kind regards
Phil

 

[Jordan9]

Good thread, aspen. I agree.

Look at it this way.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

If we accept these two things as truth, and any Christian worth his salt does, one of two things must be true.

Either
A) Mary is the Mother of God. If you really prefer saying "Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, which is God" then that is fine.
or
B) Jesus is not God.

So which one? The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, in their disdain for Mary, have resorted to choosing B).

 

[phil36]

Good thread, aspen. I agree.

Look at it this way.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

If we accept these two things as truth, and any Christian worth his salt does, one of two things must be true.

Either
A) Mary is the Mother of God. If you really prefer saying "Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, which is God" then that is fine.
or
B) Jesus is not God.

So which one? The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, in their disdain for Mary, have resorted to choosing B).

Nobody is disputing that fact, not that I have read?

phil

 

[Jordan9]

I wasn't responding to a particular post, rather just sharing the thought, and how, when you logically dissect it, you're left with 2 options, really.

 

[giantone]

* [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Following through with logic is an important step in determining the reasonableness and truth of doctrine. Declaring that Mary is merely the mother of Jesus, the man, denies His divinity. According to the Incarnation of Christ, a doctrine accepted by Catholic and Protestant Christians, Christ is fully human and fully God. In addition, according to the doctrine, you cannot separate the two. This means that referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus means the same thing as calling her the mother of God. [/FONT]

No, she is mother of God n the flesh. She didn't bear His Spirit. Just His body.

 

[Jordan9]

No, she is mother of God n the flesh. She didn't bear His Spirit. Just His body.

See, that is Nestorianism. Unless by His Spirit you mean the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. A Greek Orthodox friend and I were just discussing how Nestorianism has been rearing its head in Protestant sects in modern times.

 

[ProudLibertarian]

How is she not the mother of Jesus? She gave birth to him! There are several passages in the bible where Jesus refers to Mary as 'mother'

 

[lil-rush]

Good thread, aspen. I agree.

Look at it this way.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

If we accept these two things as truth, and any Christian worth his salt does, one of two things must be true.

Either
A) Mary is the Mother of God. If you really prefer saying "Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, which is God" then that is fine.
or
B) Jesus is not God.

So which one? The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, in their disdain for Mary, have resorted to choosing B).

If all your premises are completely true, then yes, the conclusion must also be true. Your first premise is only half-true, though.

Jesus, while on earth, was a man. Humans are made up of three things: spirit, soul, and flesh. Everything is created by God, of course, but the flesh is something created here on earth. My flesh(physical body) is made up by a combination of my mom's and dad's flesh. Their DNA created my DNA. My physical body is permanently marked by the "fingerprint" of my paternal/maternal parents.

My mind(soul) is my own. Certain science says certain personality traits and such are inherited, while other science says my personality, intelligence, etc are a product of my environment (nature vs nurture). Either way, this is mostly something that society helps to mold me into. It is something not inherited, then, but learned. One could say, then, that part of my soul is the product of my parents, and so they could partially be the parents of my soul.

My spirit is not my own and it is not inherited from my parents. Only God can create a spirit. Satan can be the spiritual father until we turn our lives over to God, but only God can create it. So, God is the paternal father of our spirits, while Satan is the adopted father of certain spirits. When we are reborn in Christ, God becomes the Father of our spirits once more. Notice, God is the Father of the spiritual.

Mary gave birth to Jesus(physical and arguably mental). God, however, created the spirit. No amount of DNA combinations given by Mary can ever create a spirit. All Mary's DNA can give us is Jesus' physical body and arguably part of his soul. The spiritual part of Jesus (the part that contains His "God") came directly from God.

So, no Mary is not the mother of God. She is simply the mother of the fleshly shell of Jesus that contained his spirit.

The argument would then be:
Jesus was man and spirit on earth
Mary gave birth to Jesus' physical being
Mary is the mother of Jesus-in-the-flesh

 

[HumbleSaint]

*
[FONT=&quot]Following through with logic is an important step in determining the reasonableness and truth of doctrine. Declaring that Mary is merely the mother of Jesus, the man, denies His divinity. According to the Incarnation of Christ, a doctrine accepted by Catholic and Protestant Christians, Christ is fully human and fully God. In addition, according to the doctrine, you cannot separate the two. This means that referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus means the same thing as calling her the mother of God. [/FONT]

Mary was the mother of God manifesting himself in the flesh, in other words Jesus humbled himself and took on the form of a servant, therefore Mary who was a Godly women was chosen to bring him into the world, but Mary hadn't existed 20 to 30 years before this(assuming she was this old) so how could she be the mother of God since God always was.

You know what you need to do. Lay aside all those catholic doctrines and books and whatever else it is that is giving you these unBiblical ideas, and buy yourself a KJV Bible and read and memorize it. You will be supprised how far off your way of thinking is.