Luke 20:41-44 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?
So is that your understanding of that passage? Case closed.
Jesus asked them for an explanation. Not denying that he was David 's son. Look at Matthew 22:41-46.
But passage is not difficult to understand now. Ask somepne you respect to explain that passage to you
So why worship God and God's son? Is that not two gods? And why not Worship Mary too? Nine months carrying a whole son of God is not child's play I would have thought!
MuttleyLaff: Concerning the exaltation of Mary to "godlike" status blueAgent criticism, let's look forward to the detail blueAgent will go into that explains what he means with that "godlike" status stamp and thereafter see what you Ubenedictus and all make of his so-called stated "godlike" status of Mary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFAQ2-L5JrY Seems you didnt, as a kid, grow up, watch Dick Dastardly and his sidekick, Muttley, known best for his mischievous wheezing laughs. If you did Ubenedictus, you would find the username, MuttleyLaff, not at all pretty confusing.
Creating a thread with the intent to spur an argument on an issue of such delicateness, wouldn't help, because at the end no body gains in understanding, the highest you would get is that a person will acknowledge your 'combat' skills which will appeal only to his head but not to his spirit, as Paul said: 'i come to you not with words of wisdom or eloquence of speech, because you aren't save by those but by God's power and his spirit", if you feel they have a doctrinal issue, then correction should be done with love and by the spirit of God and not knowledge accumulated through biased and judgemental articles gotten off the internet, its like you going to preach to an atheist with excellent words without God's spirit, it would only be a waste of time and effort, remember love never fails, try to show 'em where they are wrong without any argumentative intent, that the person might hopefully see the light, you now see.
So why worship God and God's son? Is that not two gods? And why not Worship Mary too? Nine months carrying a whole son of God is not child's play I would have thought!
they are triune (that is all encompassing enough), and God's glory cannot be shared with mortals, it was a normal child bearing experience.
do you know Jesus never used the toilet in the Bible? does that mean he never used the toilet throughout his life?
Mary gave birth to Jesus flesh and spirit. Jesus' flesh and spirit passed through Mary when he came to earth. that makes Mary theokotos i.e God bearer.
she bore God.
Actually God as you know consists of the father the son and the holy ghost, hence, your claim will be flawless and true if the birthed all three of them.
So why worship God and God's son? Is that not two gods? And why not Worship Mary too? Nine months carrying a whole son of God is not child's play I would have thought!
1/God the Father and his Son are not two Gods but one 2/ Yea Mary experience the normal biological experience of giving birth to a child but however someone else's child. 3/ Mary Cannot be worshipped only God is to be worshipped.
MuttleyLaff: One cant worship Mary as one dont worship human beings, animals, inanimate objects or celestial being aka angels. One worships only God.
One would ask why worship the human being Jesus, but I expect to be told he is not human, despite being born like all humans, and dying like one too.
MuttleyLaff: She actually was privileged and that's why, on ocassions, she had been said, to be blessed among women.
I guess that's about all the worship she gets, which is significant in its right considering the attitude to women which continues to prevail. I would expect the mother of God to be held much higher than the occasional veneration though, and see the lack of as a trump card that's just yet to be played.
1/God the Father and his Son are not two Gods but one
There's threads where this issue is flogged continously so I will limit myself to pointing out the absurdity of an Almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth and all that's in between, the know it all before it even began, allowing itself to be strung up by its creation between two pieces of wood!
I really would have thought the flood, salt and burn your ass God, would have gone about things different to how Jesus is written to have done. Perhaps God evolved.
solite3: 2/ Yea Mary experience the normal biological experience of giving birth to a child but however someone else's child.
Just as a surrogate mother is not the mother? She surrogated for God! Its sheer patriarchalism not to consider her worthy of greater veneration than "blessed", in my opinion. The same is done to those we wish to not recognise when we belittle their achievements.
they are triune (that is all encompassing enough), and God's glory cannot be shared with mortals, it was a normal child bearing experience.
Many don't agree that it was "a normal child bearing experience", especially when taking the actual conception into consideration.
And despite God being a jealous God who refuses to share, that consideration is easily waived where Jesus, a mortal, and the holy spirit is concerned, so I see no problem with further sharing "God's glory" with a quarternity that includes God's mother. After all, since the "I am a jealous God" rule has already been broken, twice, and the "graven image" rule too many times, what really does it matter if you're in for the pound?
solite3: yes the human nature and his divine nature were united in one person but God has no mother, motherhood is a biological function not applied to the divine nature. in this way yes Mary gave birth to the God-man but she is not the mother of God.
the divine word of God became flesh, biology is thus applied to his person.
Luke1:34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that "HOLY THING"which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Do you why the THING FORMED IN HER WAS CALLED HOLY? Lol Bro,I no fit argue with you abeg. My mum and siblings are still catholic and I truly believe some in your meetings are truly saved.
you can argue all day.
The Bible is clear, Mary conceived in her womb and bore her son Jesus, she was not an incubator.
In the 4th century, when Constantine the Great appointed himself Pontifex Maximus – supreme head – of the Christian Church, pagans and their pagan beliefs began infiltrating Christendom. Among the most influential of the new “converts” were those from the Mediterranean and Middle East areas where worship of the “Great Mother Goddess” and the “Divine Virgin” had existed since Babylon. According to Britannica, these groups: “….found within the Christian Church a new possibility of expression in the worship of Mary as the virgin mother of God, in whom was achieved the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature. ” (Britannica, Christianity : The doctrine of the Virgin Mary and holy Wisdom.) By the end of the 4th century, Mary the mother of Jesus, known prior to the advent of Constantine as the Christ-bearer, (Greek Christotokos, ) was being referred to as the God-bearer, ( theotokos .) Thus was born the doctrine of Mary, mother of God, a title foreign to Scripture where she is called only the mother of Jesus. At first, this matter drew little attention, but in AD 428, Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, raised objections to the theotokos appellation, and thereby originated a controversy that continues to exist here in the 21 st century. Anastasius was immediately supported in his position by Nestorius, bishop of the Constantinople church, who believed that the theotokos title adversely affected the fact of our Lord’s full humanity. Cyril, powerful bishop of Alexandria, motivated as much by envy of Constantinople’s standing among the eastern churches as he was by the theological aspects of the controversy, joined battle over the issue with Nestorius, outflanked him at the AD 431 First Council of Ephesus, and succeeded in confirming Mary as the mother of God. Nestorius, falsely accused of separating Christ’s two natures – human and divine – subsequently was excommunicated, then sacked as bishop of Constantinople by the emperor, Theodosius II, who had appointed him in the first place. He died in exile, but the controversy lives on. Is Mary the mother or Jesus? Or is she, a created being, the mother of eternal God? The Roman Catholic Church and certain mainline churches that split from Rome during or following the Reformation, declare unequivocally that Mary is, in fact, the mother of God. Those historically and currently who oppose this teaching are accused, as was Nestorius, of “dividing Christ” into an “earthly Jesus” and a “heavenly Jesus,” thereby denying the essential unity of our Lord’s two natures. But that is merely an unproved and unprovable accusation. Christ, in fact, had two distinct natures fused into a single human body, a mystery quite as hidden to man as three distinct persons comprising a single Godhead. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus only is no more a division of Christ’s two natures than acknowledging Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father is a division of the Godhead. Both are mysteries akin to that of a virgin being with child allegedly conceived by that same unborn child because He is a member of the Godhead. Shades, in other words, of the Babylonian “Mystery” religion. In a document entitled, The Mother of Jesus , published by the Catholic Information Service of the Knights of Columbus, justification for calling Mary the mother of God is capsulized in the following two paragraphs: In the natural and normal process of human reproduction, when both maternal and paternal functions unite, God simultaneously creates the human soul which enlivens the fecundated ovum in the woman’s womb, and thus a human person is conceived. It is always an individual’s human nature – a person who possesses human nature. (Emphasis added.) It matters not that the woman has no part in the production of the spiritual element (directly created by God) in the human nature of the person she conceives. It suffices that she has supplied the bodily substance which goes into the constitution of human nature possessed by the person, that she rightly acquires the title of mother. (Emphasis added.) No one disputes the fact that Mary is the mother of the human Jesus even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any question that the man Christ Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. What is disputed is the extension of the title “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was not created in the womb of the virgin. A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb. The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary’s body. He is without beginning – has always existed – and has no mother. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.) (Psalm 90:2) “Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.” (Psalm 93:2) “But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him,” (Psalm 103:17) “Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.” (Psalm 106:48) That Jesus had two natures – one created and one eternal - united in a single human body is beyond question. That only one of those two natures originated in Mary’s womb also is beyond question. And why she cannot then be called the mother of God finds an exact parallel in Christ’s relationship to King David. “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David :” (Luke 1:32) “And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?” (Matt 12:23) “And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David ; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.” (Matt 15:22) “And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.” (Matt 20:30) “And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David : Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” (Matt 21:9) In these Scriptures it is clearly established that the nation of Israel expected their Messiah to derive – as prophesied - from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, thereby attributing fatherhood of the Messiah to David in accordance with their method of reckoning descent. But David cannot be called the father of God because of his relationship to the man Christ Jesus. Our Lord Himself preempted any possibility of that erroneous belief. “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” (Matt 22:42-46) Parallel accounts of this episode are found in Mark 12: 35-37, and Luke 20:41-44. In these Scriptures, our Lord has done what Roman Catholic apologists say may not be done. He has clearly drawn a line between the human nature and the eternal nature of Christ. He has clearly established the fact that David is NOT the father of God, because he is NOT the father of the second person of the blessed trinity. He has clearly shown this distinction of natures to be a mystery – one the Jews of His day could not comprehend any better than the Roman Catholics or Christians of the 21st century. This mystery of the two fused but separate natures manifest in Christ finds another reference in the following excerpt from the Gospel of John. When confronted by the Jews and constrained to identify himself, John the Baptist’s response included this interesting disclosure: “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him .” (John 3:34) Certainly the Holy Spirit could not have been given to the Second Person of the trinity for He is part of that trinity. So the Holy Spirit that was given without measure was given only to the man Christ Jesus. It stands to reason, then, that like King David – to whom fatherhood ONLY of the man Christ Jesus is attributed - Mary is the Mother ONLY of the man Christ Jesus. To prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, let us insert Mary’s name in place of King David’s in the previously cited Scriptures: “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of MARY . He saith unto them, How then doth MARY call him Lord, saying, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46, 47) If MARY then call him Lord, how is he her son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” To insist that Mary is Christotokos only and not theotokos is not to separate Jesus into a “heavenly Jesus” and an “earthly Jesus” as Roman Catholicism contends. It is merely recognizing what Jesus Himself made clear, that David was not the father of God, and by parallel reasoning, Mary was His earthly mother only, and not a Goddess or Queen of Heaven worthy of the title mother of God. Because the Second Person of the blessed trinity is an eternal being having neither a beginning nor an ending, it was the man Christ Jesus who suffered as the second Adam on Calvary and died for the sins of the world. The Second Person of the trinity did not die, cannot die or be put to death. And it’s the man Christ Jesus – not the Second Person of the trinity - who is said Scripturally to be the one mediator between God and man. (1 Tim 2:5) He who is eternal, who could not and cannot die, could not be, and was not, born of the virgin. Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb.
Funny enough, even before Constantine was born, Christians were already calling Mary mother of God
So every thing above is based on false premise
Irenaeus
“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).
Hippolytus
“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David” (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).
“It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’” (ibid., 2).
solite3: funny enough not even the church father's creed called mary mother of God the son. going by logic david from whom mary came must the bear the title forefather of God right? but Jesus disagrees with you he is not the son of David, that automatically mean he is not the son of mary.
so, there is nothing like mother of God neither father of God
so you didn't read conceived of the holy spirit, born of the virgin Mary.
Many don't agree that it was "a normal child bearing experience", especially when taking the actual conception into consideration.
If ut ain't normal thé bible would have a said so
And despite God being a jealous God who refuses to share, that consideration is easily waived where Jesus, a mortal, and the holy spirit is concerned, so I see no problem with further sharing "God's glory" with a quarternity that includes God's mother. After all, since the "I am a jealous God" rule has already been broken, twice, and the "graven image" rule too many times, what really does it matter if you're in for the pound?
As i Saïd hé Is triune, God consists of all three personalities, so the glory is still intact.
There's threads where this issue is flogged continously so I will limit myself to pointing out the absurdity of an Almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth and all that's in between, the know it all before it even began, allowing itself to be strung up by its creation between two pieces of wood!
I really would have thought the flood, salt and burn your ass God, would have gone about things different to how Jesus is written to have done. Perhaps God evolved.
God is God irrespective of your views. He has his standard he decides to do whatever he will. God does not change, you are accountable to every idle words you speak
Just as a surrogate mother is not the mother? She surrogated for God! Its sheer patriarchalism not to consider her worthy of greater veneration than "blessed", in my opinion. The same is done to those we wish to not recognise when we belittle their achievements.
even Mary extol God, she knew he conceiving Jesus was just a favor by God to her, Mary was indeed blessed among women but she is not to be venerated or worshipped. funny you mention patriarchalism, I don't know how it relates to this topic. worship or veneration is for God giving it to another is a sin. now you know that there are different type of mother, I thought you Said mother is mother. I m not against calling Mary mother of Jesus but she is not mother of God, simple
solite3: deceive me? far from it
yes Jesus is not God the Father but Jesus is equally God. John1:1
Yes ,but Jesus himself stated that his father is greater than him.
John 14:28
“You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going
away and coming back to you.’ If you loved
Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am
going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater
than I.”
There's threads where this issue is flogged continously so I will limit myself to pointing out the absurdity of an Almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth and all that's in between, the know it all before it even began, allowing itself to be strung up by its creation between two pieces of wood!
I really would have thought the flood, salt and burn your ass God, would have gone about things different to how Jesus is written to have done. Perhaps God evolved.
Just as a surrogate mother is not the mother? She surrogated for God! Its sheer patriarchalism not to consider her worthy of greater veneration than "blessed", in my opinion. The same is done to those we wish to not recognise when we belittle their achievements.
so you will agree that God took flesh in Mary's womb, Mary carried God in human flesh for nine months, Mary gave birth to God in human flesh and nurtured him?
But you won't agree that Mary is the mother of God?
If you don't agree with the earlier phrases please tell me the ones you agree with and the ones you disagree with
solite3: God is God irrespective of your views. He has his standard he decides to do whatever he will. God does not change,
Sounds like idle rhetoric to me. God changed, is the truth. First God was the jealous God who entertains no equal, now here we are claiming not only that Jesus and the holy spirit are God's equal but the same one thing.
I guess you're right, God and God's followers do whatever they will and even make it up as they go along!
