Mary, the mother of God

[mpaper345]

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting(Micah 5:2).

The Bible says when Jesus comes who is to be the ruler in Israel that He will be from everlasting to everlasting which means that Jesus will have no beginning.

How can Mary be the mother of God when the Bible says when Jesus is born in to this world He will have no beginning which means He cannot be born which is according to His diety.

Mary is the mother of the child Christ Jesus not the mother of God for God cannot be born and the Holy Spirit who is everywhere caused the conception in Mary.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace(Isaiah 9:6).

The Bible says when the Son comes who is Jesus He shall be called the everlasting Father which means no beginning.

1.How can Jesus be called the everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace at the same time.Because Jesus is the Father and Son together.Jesus is the Father.

Explain how Jesus can be the Father.I know and understand.

Matt

 

[phil36]

Originally Posted by dscherck

By that logic Michal, the daughter of Saul had children after her death. Because do not the Scriptures say, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death." (2 Sam. 6:23)

Mmmmmm.. dscheck, I like how you try to imply a similarity between this verse in Samuel and Matthew> However, you have got it totally wrong. first of all I have checked a few translations, and not one says 'till'.

In the first instance, if you had cared to understand what was going on in the narrative (Samuel, concerning David) you would understand what the scripture you have given actually means, because it is in context of what had just happened.

David returns to bless the members of his household, only to be met by his wife. However he is met with a sarcastic comment. read the narrative for the background.

"had no child to the day of her death" there is no ambiguity in this statement, she remained childless throughout her life. read it in the context it is meant.

Concerning Matthew 1:28, it clearly says there where no relations untill after the Birth of our Lord.


Now it clearly says either 'till' or 'until' why would the holy spirit inspire that word to be put there?

it is just your axiom Ds, that you want scripture to say that not only was Mary born of a virgin she remained always a virgin herself.

Kind regards

Phil

 

[Lifelike]

Good thread, aspen. I agree.

Look at it this way.

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

Why does Mother have a capital? Shouldnt it read Mary is the mother of Jesus?

Mary did not beget the 2nd Person of the Trinity He always was and was witht the Father in the beginning - before Mary even came into existance. She then - being chosen by God to fulfill His purposes bore Him into the Earth as a man - The Spirit of Christ or the third person of the Trinity has always existed. The person Mary is a saint like i am a saint - yes she was honoured massively in being chosen to bear the Christ, but she is not part of the Godhead. Whenever i see a catholic argument for Saint or Mary worship, they usually say they are not doing what they are obviously doing. The easiest way to find out what Catholic doctrine is, is to look to the source and to see what the Vatican and its theologians say. Most catholics i speak too don't actually realise what the Vatican or the Pope believes but hold to doctrines that are in between actual biblical truth and that which the Vatican believes. Therefore it is very hard to argue logically and reason with them. What we need is ACTUAL Catholic doctrine with references and quotations then argue with that. I wonder if Mary occupies the closest place to Jesus in heaven. I sincerely doubt it.

 

[Jordan9]

Mother of Jesus is a proper noun, so it is capitalized. In that case, it is being used as her title.

 

[squidmike]

Again, I know a LOT of Catholics, and not a single one of them believe the Pope is infallible. They trust him to have correct doctrine, but then, that SHOULD be expected of anyone in a position of leadership over the church.

according to the catholic dogmas the pope is infallible it is what that church teaches and it is what they believe

 

[squidmike]

*
[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]

this would make sense if only Jesus said that He were indeed God,but He never did. because He always said the Father is greater than i.it is either that or the catholic church is saying that God is a liar.that when Jesus was being baptised with the Holy Spirit and God said this is my Son in whom i am well pleased.

 

[aspen]

​

And we know what happens if we fall away from the Divine and Catholic Faith:

"Let him be anathema."

Quest

So what is your point?

You believe the same thing about Christianity.

If a believer leaves Christianity for a nonChristian faith, he is anathema.

When the word ""anathema" was first used in the Catholic Church - the RCC was synonymous with Christianity. To not be a member of the RCC, meant you were not longer apart of the Christian Church. There were no Protestant churches or Orthodox churches to go to.

If you haven't left the Body of Christ - and even the Pope recognizes Protestants as separated brothers and sisters, which means equally Christian, but not believing in the fullness of the gospel, you are no longer considered anathema.

 

[aspen]

this would make sense if only Jesus said that He were indeed God,but He never did. because He always said the Father is greater than i.it is either that or the catholic church is saying that God is a liar.that when Jesus was being baptised with the Holy Spirit and God said this is my Son in whom i am well pleased.

You know Mike, there are a lot more options out there than 'calling Jesus a liar'. I think this phrase is used to shut people up - it promotes anti-intellectualism - it screams stop thinking about the issue at hand and just fall in line!!

Are you denying the divinity of Christ?

 

[squidmike]

You know Mike, there are a lot more options out there than 'calling Jesus a liar'. I think this phrase is used to shut people up - it promotes anti-intellectualism - it screams stop thinking about the issue at hand and just fall in line!!

Are you denying the divinity of Christ?

no i do not deny the devinity of Christ because He is resurrected and seated at the right hand of the Father,,i never said Jesus is a liar. it is the catholic church that is calling God a liar. because Jesus never said that He was ever God.

 

[aspen]

no i do not deny the devinity of Christ because He is resurrected and seated at the right hand of the Father,,i never said Jesus is a liar. it is the catholic church that is calling God a liar. because Jesus never said that He was ever God.

reread my post.

 

[phil36]

So what is your point?

You believe the same thing about Christianity.

If a believer leaves Christianity for a nonChristian faith, he is anathema.

When the word ""anathema" was first used in the Catholic Church - the RCC was synonymous with Christianity. To not be a member of the RCC, meant you were not longer apart of the Christian Church. There were no Protestant churches or Orthodox churches to go to.

If you haven't left the Body of Christ - and even the Pope recognizes Protestants as separated brothers and sisters, which means equally Christian, but not believing in the fullness of the gospel, you are no longer considered anathema.

Your premise is wrong aspen, you are assuming everyone who was a Christin was Rcc? simply not true. So are you now trying to say the Apostle Paul was talking from the power of the Vatican we he gave the anathema in the beginning of Galatians to the Judaizers Galtia?... I don't think so.

Also, there where many in the West who did not go along with the Vatican's heretical teaching... The Pope certainly deemed that they were anathema, because they saw the church as heretical.. so the Vatican kiilled thousands of them, and nearly wiped out a whole race of people in the process. many people assume Martin Luther was the champion of the reformation, and in although this is true, the church of Rome was on the slippery slope from before the middle ages.

Phil

 

[QuestionTime]

Mmmmmm.. dscheck, I like how you try to imply a similarity between this verse in Samuel and Matthew> However, you have got it totally wrong. first of all I have checked a few translations, and not one says 'till'.

In the first instance, if you had cared to understand what was going on in the narrative (Samuel, concerning David) you would understand what the scripture you have given actually means, because it is in context of what had just happened.

David returns to bless the members of his household, only to be met by his wife. However he is met with a sarcastic comment. read the narrative for the background.

"had no child to the day of her death" there is no ambiguity in this statement, she remained childless throughout her life. read it in the context it is meant.

Concerning Matthew 1:28, it clearly says there where no relations untill after the Birth of our Lord.


Now it clearly says either 'till' or 'until' why would the holy spirit inspire that word to be put there?

it is just your axiom Ds, that you want scripture to say that not only was Mary born of a virgin she remained always a virgin herself.

Kind regards

Phil

2 Samuel 6:23
23Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

I looked at that yesterday and I thought it said "till." But you are right, it says "unto death." I think we need to check out the words in Strong's concordance.

Thanks Phil for checking this out properly.

================================================================

Strong's G2193 - heōs
ἕως
Transliteration

heōs

Pronunciation

he'-ōs (Key)

Part of Speech

conjuction

Root Word (Etymology)

Of uncertain affinity
​

TDNT Reference

n/a​

Vines

View Entry​

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) till, until

=========================================================================
unto the day

h3117 יום yowm

Strong's H3117 - yowm
יוֹם
Transliteration

yowm

Pronunciation

yōm (Key)

Part of Speech

masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

From an unused root meaning to be hot
​

TWOT Reference 852

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow

I don't know if that helped any...

Quest

 

[zeroturbulence]

My thoughts on this subject can be summed up in 4 words...

What would Jesus say?

If we don't know..we probably shouldn't be speculating, because thisis a subject that is very close to our Lord's heart.

 

[aspen]

Your premise is wrong aspen, you are assuming everyone who was a Christin was Rcc? simply not true. So are you now trying to say the Apostle Paul was talking from the power of the Vatican we he gave the anathema in the beginning of Galatians to the Judaizers Galtia?... I don't think so.

Also, there where many in the West who did not go along with the Vatican's heretical teaching... The Pope certainly deemed that they were anathema, because they saw the church as heretical.. so the Vatican kiilled thousands of them, and nearly wiped out a whole race of people in the process. many people assume Martin Luther was the champion of the reformation, and in although this is true, the church of Rome was on the slippery slope from before the middle ages.

Phil

So who are these groups? Are you trying to call the Cathars, Christian? The Montanists? Gnostics? We've already been down this road, Phil.

Yeah, you are right, the word anathema wasn't in use yet ......neither was sola scriptura

 

[phil36]

Galatians 1:v8 and 9 use the terminology cursed..anathema so it is not a Vatican RCC idea. However the popes used it as control from their money grabbing schemes, and schemes of control.

Yes the cathars were heretics, but does that mean you slaughter them? the pope thought so.

of course what about the waldensians, who, because of their understanding that you can read scripture for yourself where slaughtered by the thousands under various and numerous popes.

No wonder the eastern church broke away, and other groups that led to the reformation. go against what the pope thought as correct and you were jailed and slaughtered.

Of course during the inquisition, if you where unfortunate enough to be subject to inquisition and where killed/jailed (as many thousands where) you property and all you had was sold.. who got the money???? of course half went to the Vatican/Popes purse and the other half to the king.

They where also against the heresies of the romanist popes, selling penance, if you where rich enough you could buy your way to papacy, and certainly a bishop. the Vatican become corrupt to the core.

Phil

 

[Browncoat]

go against what the pope thought as correct and you were jailed and slaughtered.

And Martin Luther, hero of the Protestant church and the Reformation, suggested G-d should wipe out the Jews from the earth. How is that any more acceptable than slaughtering your opponents?

 

[phil36]

And Martin Luther, hero of the Protestant church and the Reformation, suggested G-d should wipe out the Jews from the earth. How is that any more acceptable than slaughtering your opponents?

I never said it was.. However browncoat, one thing that you forgot,, is that Luther did not do it.

On the other hand Jews suffered immensely under Rome or did you forget to mention that point!!!?

Numerous popes slaughtered thousands upon thousands of people for having the audacity to disagree with the papacy.. imagine that.. its terrible isn't it, that someone should disagree with a man (pope) and stand in his way of power and control..

Phil

 

[Browncoat]

I never said it was.. However browncoat, one thing that you forgot,, is that Luther did not do it.

I didn't forget that, but Yeshua tells us that if you harbour hatred for your brother in your heart, you have already committed murder. The fact that he desired that it be done is just as bad as if he had actually done it.

On the other hand Jews suffered immensely under Rome or did you forget to mention that point!!!

I didn't forget to mention it. However, my people have gotten over the atrocities Rome committed against us and have forgiven them for it. That happened long, looooong ago, and does not happen today. I think it's time you learned to do the same.

 

[phil36]

I didn't forget that, but Yeshua tells us that if you harbour hatred for your brother in your heart, you have already committed murder. The fact that he desired that it be done is just as bad as if he had actually done it.



I didn't forget to mention it. However, my people have gotten over the atrocities Rome committed against us and have forgiven them for it. That happened long, looooong ago, and does not happen today. I think it's time you learned to do the same.

Yes but, you are missing the whole point Browncoat, most of or a lot of Romanist dogma was built upon a corrupt power cradling leadership.

Yes and Jesus, you know you can say Jesus, you don't have to use Hebrew spelt in English. anyhow, I know what Jesus said about murder. why not write it all in Hebrew (just an observation)

And yes, I never once said I hold a grudge against rome. so why do I have to do the same as you Browncoat, you obviously needed to forgive them.


I said Luther was wrong in that point, yet he was one man.. as I said before Evangelicalism started before Luther, he was the final nail against romes corruption.

The difference is, that the romaists would have you believe that the popes are infallible, are from a line from Peter, and yet the whole RCC has been built on corruption, herectical doctrine, murder and the list goes on.

They have no political power now as that has been taken away from them now (political as in controlling power)

Phil

 

[giantone]

Yes but, you are missing the whole point Browncoat, most of or a lot of Romanist dogma was built upon a corrupt power cradling leadership.

Yes and Jesus, you know you can say Jesus, you don't have to use Hebrew spelt in English. anyhow, I know what Jesus said about murder. why not write it all in Hebrew (just an observation)

And yes, I never once said I hold a grudge against rome. so why do I have to do the same as you Browncoat, you obviously needed to forgive them.


I said Luther was wrong in that point, yet he was one man.. as I said before Evangelicalism started before Luther, he was the final nail against romes corruption.

The difference is, that the romaists would have you believe that the popes are infallible, are from a line from Peter, and yet the whole RCC has been built on corruption, herectical doctrine, murder and the list goes on.

They have no political power now as that has been taken away from them now (political as in controlling power)

Phil

Your very wrong about the last point.