The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Rhamiel]

if Jesus is God
and Mary is His Mother

then Mary is the Mother of God

this is logic

if A = B and A = C then B = C

ok, lets take out the word "God" with something else

"Jessica" is the mother of "Rick"
"Rick" is "The General"
"Jessica" is the mother of "The General"

Protestants do not LIKE calling Mary the Mother of God
well I am sorry but logic does not bend to your whims and preferences

 

[BobRyan]

no "Mary mother of God"
are you saying that Jesus is not God?

No I am saying that

Mary is not the Mother of God.
Joseph is not the "Father of God"
James is not the "Brother of God"

And that No NT text uses any such language.

you have to be saying one or both of those if you say that Mary is not the Mother of God.

Turns out - that is not true.


Even the RCC in the dark ages had enough sense not to use claims about

Joseph is not the "Father of God"
James is not the "Brother of God"

Because they are not found in the NT and it conveys the totally wrong idea.

Same with "Mary Mother of God and Queen of the Universe... all powerful like Christ, sinless like Christ..."

if Jesus is God
and Mary is His Mother

then Mary is the Mother of God

this is logic

if A = B and A = C then B = C

So then "Joseph is the Father of God"??

James is the "brother of God"??

Joseph was "stronger than God"??

Joseph "wiser than God"??

Joseph "instructor of God"??

And if we fail to endorse all that nonsense then Jesus was not the Son of God?

Really???

That is supposed to fly??

Good thing not one single soul in the NT bought into any of it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Which gets us back to --

A new world of posts!

The Church in Rome was established in the first century AD that's why the bible has a letter to the Romans in it.

The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

You know, BobRyan, a post that's about a year old is hardly hot news. If you've read it for the first time today ... well what can one say? The boat sailed a year ago and you're too late to board.

Beware the

Zombie Thread!​

 

[Metal Minister]

Hi LLOJ

well this seems like a simple question
the Catholic Church claims to be older then that
If someone wants to claim that the Catholic Church was created in A.D. 313
then they would have to show what doctrines changed
how was it different in A.D. 312 that would necessitate claiming that a new denomination was created in 313

I do not think such a claim can be reasonably made

No offense my brother, but it is the RCC that is making the positive claim of being older. Therefore the onus is upon the RCC to prove this. Otherwise it's akin to me saying "Pluto is really made from frozen blue jello! Prove me wrong!"

 

[Metal Minister]

if Jesus is God
and Mary is His Mother

then Mary is the Mother of God

this is logic

if A = B and A = C then B = C

ok, lets take out the word "God" with something else

"Jessica" is the mother of "Rick"
"Rick" is "The General"
"Jessica" is the mother of "The General"

Protestants do not LIKE calling Mary the Mother of God
well I am sorry but logic does not bend to your whims and preferences

The problem lies brother, in that God the Son was not created nor born. Jesus was born, so she is the earthly mother of Jesus, but not God. She did not give birth to God the Father right? Nor God the Holy Spirit? Of course not. God the Son took on a human nature and Mary was the vessel He used to accomplish this. That's not the same as giving birth to God as though she has some dominion over Him. Remember, God the Son shared His glory with the Father from eternity past, and God has stated "My glory shall I share with no one" Isaiah 42:8

 

[MoreCoffee]

No offense my brother, but it is the RCC that is making the positive claim of being older. Therefore the onus is upon the RCC to prove this. Otherwise it's akin to me saying "Pluto is really made from frozen blue jello! Prove me wrong!"

Well, proving it is easy. Open your new testament to Romans ...

There we are, right at the beginning, and in a church established before Paul got to Rome, probably in the 40s, maybe in the 30s AD. Possibly established by some of the converts from the crowd on the day of Pentecost. You know, the folk who heard saint Peter preaching. They would go home to Rome eventually, and take their faith with them, and start to pray and worship together in the city, and well ... we know that some time in the 40s AD or early 50s AD emperor Claudius had Jews expelled from the city ... That's in Acts, you know

Acts 18:1-18 NJB (1) After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth, (2) where he met a Jew called Aquila whose family came from Pontus. He and his wife Priscilla had recently left Italy because an edict of Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome. Paul went to visit them, (3) and when he found they were tentmakers, of the same trade as himself, he lodged with them, and they worked together. (4) Every Sabbath he used to hold debates in the synagogues, trying to convert Jews as well as Greeks. (5) After Silas and Timothy had arrived from Macedonia, Paul devoted all his time to preaching, declaring to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. (6) When they turned against him and started to insult him, he took his cloak and shook it out in front of them, saying, 'Your blood be on your own heads; from now on I will go to the gentiles with a clear conscience.' (7) Then he left the synagogue and moved to the house next door that belonged to a worshipper of God called Justus. (8) Crispus, president of the synagogue, and his whole household, all became believers in the Lord. Many Corinthians when they heard this became believers and were baptised. (9) One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision, 'Be fearless; speak out and do not keep silence: (10) I am with you. I have so many people that belong to me in this city that no one will attempt to hurt you.' (11) So Paul stayed there preaching the word of God among them for eighteen months. (12) But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a concerted attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, (13) 'We accuse this man of persuading people to worship God in a way that breaks the Law.' (14) Before Paul could open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, 'Listen, you Jews. If this were a misdemeanour or a crime, it would be in order for me to listen to your plea; (15) but if it is only quibbles about words and names, and about your own Law, then you must deal with it yourselves -- I have no intention of making legal decisions about these things.' (16) Then he began to hustle them out of the court, (17) and at once they all turned on Sosthenes, the synagogue president, and beat him in front of the tribunal. Gallio refused to take any notice at all. (18) After staying on for some time, Paul took leave of the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had his hair cut off, because of a vow he had made.​

So we have the Roman Church established in early Apostolic times, and we have the list of bishops of Rome given by various early church fathers. Peter, Linus, Anacletus (also knows as Cletus), Clement (who wrote letters to Corinth in the 90s AD) and so on. So there's good prima facie evidence for the Church in Rome being there and being headed by bishops who trace their lineage (not physical but spiritual) to saint Peter ...

 

[MoreCoffee]

The problem lies brother, in that God the Son was not created nor born. Jesus was born, so she is the earthly mother of Jesus, but not God. She did not give birth to God the Father right? Nor God the Holy Spirit? Of course not. God the Son took on a human nature and Mary was the vessel He used to accomplish this. That's not the same as giving birth to God as though she has some dominion over Him. Remember, God the Son shared His glory with the Father from eternity past, and God has stated "My glory shall I share with no one" Isaiah 42:8

The problem with the above quoted explanation is that it contradicts the teaching of the council of Ephesus and of Chalcidon. It also contradicts the Athanasian Creed, and probably the Nicene Creed (by implication) since it is clear that Mary is mother of Jesus Christ the person and that person (Jesus Christ) is both divine and human. You can't separate the one from the other and retain the person. He is now and always, since the incarnation, both God and man in one person. So obviously Mary gave birth to a human being, a whole person, and not to something that was merely a human body inhabited by a divine person.

Check out the Nicene Creed, look carefully at the wording.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.​

It is both the Son of God and the son of Mary who is born of the Virgin Mary and so in the Chalcidonian formula Mary is called the theotokos, the mother of God. To try to somehow deny that Mary gave birth to the person Jesus who is the Christ and the Son of God is really saying that the Nicene Creed is wrong and that Chalcedon is wrong and that's pretty much the definition of a "non orthodox theology" in CF, isn't it?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yet He is the begotten of God during His earthly life and is not the Son of God till after death. It's almost a reversal of birth bringing forth life. In Christ's case death brought forth life.

 

[Metal Minister]

Well, proving it is easy. Open your new testament to Romans ...

There we are, right at the beginning, and in a church established before Paul got to Rome, probably in the 40s, maybe in the 30s AD. Possibly established by some of the converts from the crowd on the day of Pentecost. You know, the folk who heard saint Peter preaching. They would go home to Rome eventually, and take their faith with them, and start to pray and worship together in the city, and well

pure speculation

... we know that some time in the 40s AD or early 50s AD emperor Claudius had Jews expelled from the city ... That's in Acts, you know
Acts 18:1-18 NJB (1) After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth, (2) where he met a Jew called Aquila whose family came from Pontus. He and his wife Priscilla had recently left Italy because an edict of Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome. Paul went to visit them, (3) and when he found they were tentmakers, of the same trade as himself, he lodged with them, and they worked together. (4) Every Sabbath he used to hold debates in the synagogues, trying to convert Jews as well as Greeks. (5) After Silas and Timothy had arrived from Macedonia, Paul devoted all his time to preaching, declaring to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. (6) When they turned against him and started to insult him, he took his cloak and shook it out in front of them, saying, 'Your blood be on your own heads; from now on I will go to the gentiles with a clear conscience.' (7) Then he left the synagogue and moved to the house next door that belonged to a worshipper of God called Justus. (8) Crispus, president of the synagogue, and his whole household, all became believers in the Lord. Many Corinthians
when they heard this became believers and were baptised. (9) One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision, 'Be fearless; speak out and do not keep silence: (10) I am with you. I have so many people that belong to me in this city that no one will attempt to hurt you.' (11) So Paul stayed there preaching the word of God among them for eighteen months.

So far this proves Paul was in Corinth (Greece) but doesn't say anything about an established apostolic church in Rome, nor dies it mention Peter as a pope.

(12) But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a concerted attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, (13) 'We accuse this man of persuading people to worship God in a way that breaks the Law.' (14) Before Paul could open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, 'Listen, you Jews. If this were a misdemeanour or a crime, it would be in order for me to listen to your plea; (15) but if it is only quibbles about words and names, and about your own Law, then you must deal with it yourselves -- I have no intention of making legal decisions about these things.' (16) Then he began to hustle them out of the court, (17) and at once they all turned on Sosthenes, the synagogue president, and beat him in front of the tribunal. Gallio refused to take any notice at all. (18) After staying on for some time, Paul took leave of the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had his hair cut off, because of a vow he had made.

Again, nothing about Rome. Though I find it interesting that if the Jews were kicked out of Italy, who was Peter preaching to as he was sent to preach the circumcised?

So we have the Roman Church established in early Apostolic times, and we have the list of bishops of Rome given by various early church fathers. Peter, Linus, Anacletus (also knows as Cletus), Clement (who wrote letters to Corinth in the 90s AD) and so on. So there's good prima facie evidence for the Church in Rome being there and being headed by bishops who trace their lineage (not physical but spiritual) to saint Peter ...

That's an awful lot to say to still be speculation. The letter to Romans is not to an overarching Roman Catholic Church, but to a small group of believers. Also you run into the problem of Peter being Pope now. If he were, would Paul not have written his letter to him? (This is just one among MANY problems with Peter as Pope and an established RCC.) Also, as I stated before, if the Jews were kicked out of Italy, why would Peter be there establishing a church? Also, if you have links to the ecf's on the lineage, I'd like to peruse them. You also have the problem of Peter's own words:
1 Peter 5:1-2
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as yourfellow elder and[bless and do not curse]witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a[bless and do not curse]partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,2[bless and do not curse]shepherd[bless and do not curse]the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according tothe will of God;...

If he was a pope or head of the church, why did he not say "I exhort the elders as your leader and pope"?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yet He is the begotten of God during His earthly life and is not the Son of God till after death. It's almost a reversal of birth bringing forth life. In Christ's case death brought forth life.

Well, if the above quote is true then we best toss out saint John's gospel because it says the opposite.

John 1:14 NJB The Word became flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

The incarnate Jesus is the Son of God, always will be, and that's the heart of incarnational theology as it is expressed in the scriptures and in the creeds.

 

[Metal Minister]

The problem with the above quoted explanation is that it contradicts the teaching of the council of Ephesus and of Chalcidon. It also contradicts the Athanasian Creed, and probably the Nicene Creed (by implication) since it is clear that Mary is mother of Jesus Christ the person and that person (Jesus Christ) is both divine and human. You can't separate the one from the other and retain the person. He is now and always, since the incarnation, both God and man in one person. So obviously Mary gave birth to a human being, a whole person, and not to something that was merely a human body inhabited by a divine person.

Check out the Nicene Creed, look carefully at the wording.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
It is both the Son of God and the son of Mary who is born of the Virgin Mary and so in the Chalcidonian formula Mary is called the theotokos, the mother of God. To try to somehow deny that Mary gave birth to the person Jesus who is the Christ and the Son of God is really saying that the Nicene Creed is wrong and that Chalcedon is wrong and that's pretty much the definition of a "non orthodox theology" in CF, isn't it?

Wow you're wrong in a great deal of this, but you'll have to forgive me as I don't have time now to explain it. At my next chance I will, please be patient!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Rather a lot of [bless and do not curse] in post #130.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Well, if the above quote is true then we best toss out saint John's gospel because it says the opposite.

John 1:14 NJB The Word became flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

The incarnate Jesus is the Son of God, always will be, and that's the heart of incarnational theology as it is expressed in the scriptures and in the creeds.

aagh I knew I shouldn't have posted cause know you're making me work ,,, goes to find greek... sure that's right ugh

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

says the only begotten of the Father in KJV

1:14 And 2532 the Word 3056 was made 1096 5633 flesh 4561, and 2532 dwelt 4637 5656 among 1722 us 2254, (and 2532 we beheld 2300 5662 his 846 glory 1391, the glory 1391 as 5613 of the only begotten 3439 of 3844 the Father 3962,) full 4134 of grace 5485 and 2532 truth 225.

 

[MoreCoffee]

says the only begotten of the Father in KJV

1:14 And 2532 the Word 3056 was made 1096 5633 flesh 4561, and 2532 dwelt 4637 5656 among 1722 us 2254, (and 2532 we beheld 2300 5662 his 846 glory 1391, the glory 1391 as 5613 of the only begotten 3439 of 3844 the Father 3962,) full 4134 of grace 5485 and 2532 truth 225.

Yeah, and the Father is ...?

God, right?

So Jesus incarnate is the Son of God.

In fact a number of ancient manuscripts call him God the Son in verse 18.

As an aside, the JW bible (the NWT) says "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." in John 1:18 because they used the Westcott & Hort Greek text for their translation and it has "God the Son" in it.​

And of course, the NASB tells us this:

John 1:14-18 NASB (14) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (15) John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" (16) For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. (17) For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. (18) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.​

 

[BobRyan]

In this post #123 the question is asked ...

"And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?"

to which we get a lot of dancing around the issue -- such as this non-answer...

You know, BobRyan, a post that's about a year old is hardly hot news. ...

So the point remains - until the list of doctrines that you find at the link "evolve" do you really even have an RCC??

if the RCC members here can show that the NT writers promoted all of those doctrines - please show it.

But if the Bible is to be believed - then the doctrines in that list are simply not in the NT text.

And that is a problem for those who want an RCC that is in 70 AD or 90 AD or 35 AD.

in that case you may well have to wait for 313AD to roll around. (Which - as it turns out - the point of the title of this thread)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rhamiel]

MM

, in that God the Son was not created nor born.

God the Son was not created
but God the Son was born

because Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus was born about 2,000 years ago

you see how tricky this all gets when you feel the need to FORCE Jesus to be different then the Son of God?

and for what, because you do not like the term Mother of God for Mary?
it leads you to say "the Son of God was never born"

people are afraid that calling Mary the Mother of God is a heresy
but it leads to some really REALLY sticky Christocentric heresies (or atleast very poor wording)

 

[BobRyan]

MM

God the Son was not created
but God the Son was born

because Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus was born about 2,000 years ago

Catholic error is in confusing procreation with INcarnation.

If it were simply Mary and "procreation" Jesu would not be the Son of God at all. So why use terms that don't apply??

In the case of incarnation it is not half-of-God the Son - but all the pre-existing Person already brought into being eternity past -- and not having his start at all with Mary..

Procreation vs INcarnation -- huge difference!!

And not one single "Mary the Mother of God" statement in all of scripture - no not even in the NT.


What else we don't find there --



Joseph is the Father of God"??

James is the "brother of God"??

Joseph was "stronger than God"??

Joseph "wiser than God"??

Joseph "instructor of God"??

And if we fail to endorse all that nonsense then Jesus was not the Son of God?


Good thing not one single soul in the NT bought into any of it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jesus incarnate was begotten of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary to produce a son who was the Only Begotten Son of God. That testifies to the fact that God was the Father... yes... but what I'm saying that the incubation time to become the Son of God was His earthly life.

Yet He is the begotten of God during His earthly life and is not the Son of God till after death. It's almost a reversal of birth bringing forth life. In Christ's case death brought forth life.

(the difference between begotten and son of is scriptural)

The above quote is very far from orthodox Christian belief. Very far indeed. Mind you, just saying that it is not orthodox without explaining why would be unkind. So here's a brief explanation. John chapter one explains as clearly as a single chapter of scripture can that God sent forth his Son to be born of a woman, the woman was blessed Mary. The Son of God, born of Mary, is God. That's partly what John 1:18 tells us. John 1:14 tells us that the Word became a human being (became flesh is the term used) and dwelt among us (human beings) and we saw his glory (meaning those who were with him saw who he was and perceived that he was the Glorious God, the only begotten of the Father. And he was full of grace and truth. So the person to whom Blessed Mary gave birth was none other than the Son of God (the Father) and was the Word (of God) and the only begotten God himself. Thus we cannot deny that Blessed Mary is the mother of the Son of God who is the only begotten God.

Now, when the above post asserts that Jesus was not the Son of God until the end of his life I must ask where did you get that idea from? Do you have some passage of scripture from which you've drawn that teaching?