genuineoriginal
New member
Nowhere in the Bible is Mary called the Mother of God.
That is a blasphemous title that attributes Mary with power over God.
ECT ICON OF THE VIRGIN MARY FROM THE EARLY CHURCH PERIOD
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
That is a blasphemous title that attributes Mary with power over God.
musterion
Well-known member
Jews received the oracles of God, doesn't it say that?
musterion
Well-known member
Youre confused only because you're conflating two different propositions.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed, it does!
I alway wondered why some of these "scholars" thought that every author of the books of the Bible was a Jew/Hebrew EXCEPT ONE.
HisServant
New member
I don't rely on scriptures alone when it comes to history... I also rely on other early christian manuscripts from the 1st to the 3rd century.. at least until Rome got involved.
Once Rome got involved, you see a massive effort to fabricate history in its favor to legitimize itself.... we are VERY lucky any non-Roman documents escaped its attempts to destroy them.
Cruciform
New member
- Jesus Christ was/is God Incarnate
- Mary carried and gave birth to Jesus Christ
- In this sense, therefore, Mary is the "Mother of God"
If you reject Mary as Theotokos ("God-Bearer"), which of the first two premises do you deny?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Unfortunately for your assumptions, this is not the criterion of "virginity" in the 1st century in the context of Jesus' miraculous conception and birth. Rather, Mary herself stated the criterion in her reply to the angel: "...I do not know a man" (Lk. 1:34, NKJV). In modern terms, she had not had sexual relations, and it was specifically this which defined her as a "virgin." So much for your unbiblical assumption.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, Romanist.... I understand your bogus reasoning and your use of the fallacy of the false dilemma.
Mary was the mother of Jesus ONLY in regards to His HUMANITY and is NOT in ANY regard His mother in regards to His DEITY.
Your bogus RCC doctrine tries to conflate these TWO natures and is completely invalid. Your "church" always tries to elevate Mary far above the position that God gives her.
-Jesus Christ was/is God.
-Elizabeth, who gave birth to John, was the cousin of Mary, who gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ.
-Therefore, Elizabeth is "The Aunt of God," and John the Baptist is therefore "The Cousin of God."
Roman deception-a 6 year old can see through this blasphemous, satanic deception, sophistry.
Right Divider
Body part
It spreads like a staph infection.
Cruciform
New member
Paul himself acknowledges Luke's Gentile identity when he includes Luke among his (Paul's) uncircumcised companions (Col. 4:10-14). Try again.
Cruciform
New member
Therefore, you reject the first premise, that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. So noted.
brewmama
New member
No one ever says she is God. That is you assuming. Jesus is God. Mary is his mother. You figure it out, it's pretty basic.
musterion
Well-known member
Is she considered co-redeemer/redemptrix among the Orthodox as well?
brewmama
New member
No.
Right Divider
Body part
This explanation is much better than your incorrect understanding: http://www.levitt.com/essays/luke
Right Divider
Body part
To call Mary "the mother of God" is calling her God.
As I said, Mary has NOTHING to do with the DEITY of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is completely inappropriate and blasphemous to call her that.
His humanity is NOT His deity and His deity is NOT His humanity.
To mix and confuse these leads to heresies and false doctrines galore.
brewmama
New member
LOL! Talk about heresies! The whole point of the title is to affirm that Jesus was both God and man.
"The Council of Ephesus decreed, in opposition to those who denied Mary the title Theotokos ("the one who gives birth to God") but called her Christotokos ("the one who gives birth to Christ"), that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human.[5][6] Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin who gave [Him] birth, not [Theotokos]?" (Epistle 1, to the monks of Egypt; PG 77:13B). Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary, according to this Catholic doctrine."
Cruciform
New member
Your source's unsubstantiated speculation simply fails to convince. I'll stick with Paul's NT testimony and the informed conclusions of the vast majority of New Testament scholars throughout Christian history.