The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[samir]

The phrase “mother of God” originated with and continues to be used in the Roman Catholic Church. One of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos, or “God-bearer,” in reference to Mary. That council officially proclaimed Mary as the “mother of God,” and the doctrine was later included in the Catholic catechism. The idea behind calling Mary the “mother of God” is that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God.

The major problem with this logic is that the term “God” implies the totality of Yahweh, and we know that Yahweh has no beginning and no end (Psalm 90:2). First Timothy 6:15-16 says that God is immortal.

Are you saying Jesus is not God because he's not the Trinity?

Being immortal, God never was “born” and never had a “mother.” The second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, did have a beginning to His earthly ministry when he was conceived in Mary’s womb and was born, but from eternity past He had always been the Son of God.

If Jesus is God, then God was born and had a mother. If Mary is not the mother of God then she is only the mother of a man which would mean Jesus was not God.

Philippians 2:6–7 gives us a bit more insight on what transpired when Jesus left heaven to become man. The New Living Translation says, “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.” Jesus was already one with the Father, but He set aside His rights as Divinity and took the form of a baby (John 1:1). He went on to live the normal life of a Jewish boy, obeying His earthly parents (Luke 2:51).

Yes, I understand the incarnation.

A mother by definition precedes her child and at some point is more powerful than her child. So to call Mary the “mother of God” gives the misleading implication that Mary preceded and at one time was more powerful than the Lord God Almighty. Although Catholic doctrine tries to deny this implication, it is inescapable.

What dictionary says a mother is more powerful than her child? I must not have a mother because the person who gave birth to me isn't more powerful than me.

It is biblical to say that Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ during His incarnation on the earth. However, Catholics believe it is not enough to say that Mary was the mother of Jesus. Pope John Paul II, in a speech in 1996, encouraged people “not only to invoke the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of Jesus, but also to recognize her as Mother of God” (L'Osservatore Romano, 4 December 1996, p. 11). This is not biblical.

It's really all about Jesus. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus she is the mother of whoever Jesus was. Christians believe Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is God's mother. To deny this you would have to believe one of the following:

1. Jesus is not God
2. Jesus is two persons (Mary was the mother of the human Jesus but not the divine Jesus) - This is the reason the heretics rejected calling Mary the Mother of God and why the council had to be called to explain the correct teaching on the nature of Jesus who has two natures but is only one person.

The Lord God Almighty has no mother, since He has no beginning and no end (Genesis 1:1; Revelation 4:8).

This is true. If you're referring to the Father, it's correct that he doesn't have a mother. The statements "Lord God Almighty has no mother" and "Mary is God's mother" are both true because God can refer to the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. Because of this all of the following are true despite appearing contradictory:

The Lord God Almighty is not a man.
God is a man.

God does not sleep.
God slept.

 

[samir]

I think you just broker one rule of CF.

I meant not a Christian according to the ecumenical council which represented the whole of Christianity. I think most Protestants actually believe Mary is the Mother of God despite denying it. I attribute it to poor logic and not heresy.

That fact in itself should indicate that it isn't in the Bible so the dogma that arose from teh council is man made not God inspired.

The council declaring Mary ever virgin indicates it's a man made teaching? Do you feel the same way about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus which the councils also taught?

By that reckoning I could say "I didn't murder him until he hit me" and therefore plead in a court of Common Law that I did not murder anyone because the word "until" doesn't mean things changed later.

I'll use an example from scripture. 2Samuel 6:23 says, "And Saul’s daughter Michal bore no children from that day on until the day she died." Do you interpret that as saying Michal bore children after she died?

 

[Hoghead1]

I meant not a Christian according to the ecumenical council which represented the whole of Christianity. I think most Protestants actually believe Mary is the Mother of God despite denying it. I attribute it to poor logic and not heresy.



The council declaring Mary ever virgin indicates it's a man made teaching? Do you feel the same way about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus which the councils also taught?



I'll use an example from scripture. 2Samuel 6:23 says, "And Saul’s daughter Michal bore no children from that day on until the day she died." Do you interpret that as saying Michal bore children after she died?

The Trinitarian doctrines are all extra-biblical in nature and therefore "man-made."

 

[keltoi]

I meant not a Christian according to the ecumenical council which represented the whole of Christianity. I think most Protestants actually believe Mary is the Mother of God despite denying it. I attribute it to poor logic and not heresy.

What ecumenical councils represented all Christians? When a council has to be called to define something against a perceived heresy it is rather obvious the ecumenical council did not represent all Christians because there were obviously people who they disagreed with.

The council declaring Mary ever virgin indicates it's a man made teaching?

I wonder do people rote learn these bad arguments? Where in the Bible doe it say Mary was a virgin all her life? If it's not in the Bible it is man made so all I need is for one person to show me where teh Bible says MAry remained a virgin all her life.

Do you feel the same way about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus which the councils also taught?

I don't need a council I can see the Trinity in the Bible for myself. I'm one of those rare people who dares to use his God given right to interpret the Bible for myself.

I'll use an example from scripture. 2Samuel 6:23 says, "And Saul’s daughter Michal bore no children from that day on until the day she died." Do you interpret that as saying Michal bore children after she died?

Put the verse in context, then come back to me and we'll discuss it.

 

[rakovsky]

Where in the Bible doe it say Mary was a virgin all her life? If it's not in the Bible it is man made so all I need is for one person to show me where teh Bible says Mary remained a virgin all her life.

That's kind of like saying that infant baptism or the Trinity or the earth being round or all the faithful apostles but John dying as martyrs while remaining steadfast are all "man made" doctrines because they are not explicit in the Bible.

 

[rakovsky]

This is true. If you're referring to the Father, it's correct that he doesn't have a mother. The statements "Lord God Almighty has no mother" and "Mary is God's mother" are both true because God can refer to the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. Because of this all of the following are true despite appearing contradictory:

The Lord God Almighty is not a man.
God is a man.

God does not sleep.
God slept.

The rabbis conclude that since God cannot die, have a mother, or sleep, therefore Jesus either did not do anything of those things or He wasn't God.

 

[rakovsky]

What ecumenical councils represented all Christians? When a council has to be called to define something against a perceived heresy it is rather obvious the ecumenical council did not represent all Christians because there were obviously people who they disagreed with.

So the Nicene Creed, Nicea, and the Council of Jerusalem in the Bible, Acts 15, did not represent the Christian community? I think we commonly say that they do, even if there were those, pharisee Christians of the circumcision and Arians, who disagreed.

 

[keltoi]

That's kind of like saying that infant baptism or the Trinity or the earth being round or all the faithful apostles but John dying as martyrs while remaining steadfast are all "man made" doctrines because they are not explicit in the Bible.

So you are saying that infant baptism is a man made doctrine are you? The Trinity is in the Bible because the Bible tells us of the 3 distinct persons within the Godhead. I don't know what the earth being round has got to do with this, and how is the the way the apostles died a doctrine?

 

[keltoi]

So the Nicene Creed, Nicea, and the Council of Jerusalem in the Bible, Acts 15, did not represent the Christian community? I think we commonly say that they do, even if there were those, pharisee Christians of the circumcision and Arians, who disagreed.

When someone says they represented the whole of Christianity and it is obvious they didn't it's a point of argument that is worthy of pointing out as false.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you are saying that infant baptism is a man made doctrine are you? The Trinity is in the Bible because the Bible tells us of the 3 distinct persons within the Godhead. I don't know what the earth being round has got to do with this, and how is the the way the apostles died a doctrine?

The Bible provides what we might call proto-Trinitarian language, but the theological articulations that came in later centuries developed out of the apostolic witness. It's unlikely that would we to sit down with St. Paul and speak of the Son as homoousios with the Father that he would understand what we mean, since that way of speaking came out of the Christological debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

That doesn't make the homoousian language "man-made" as in "wrong", but it is--strictly speaking--extra biblical. In the same way that the Canon of Scripture, the Bible, itself is extra-biblical.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rakovsky]

So you are saying that infant baptism is a man made doctrine are you? The Trinity is in the Bible because the Bible tells us of the 3 distinct persons within the Godhead. I don't know what the earth being round has got to do with this, and how is the the way the apostles died a doctrine?

I mean that if Mary remained a virgin, it's just a biological fact and she did not have sex. Some people don't.
If it's a true fact, I don't know whether it is worth debating whether it's man made or not, kind of like the same thing with the earth being round or the apostles suffering persecution. Certainly in church tradition there are teachings that the apostles remained strong and Mary remained a virgin. Not sure about the form of the earth though.

 

[Hoghead1]

So you are saying that infant baptism is a man made doctrine are you? The Trinity is in the Bible because the Bible tells us of the 3 distinct persons within the Godhead. I don't know what the earth being round has got to do with this, and how is the the way the apostles died a doctrine?

The Trinity is implied in the Bible, but that's it; it is not worked out in any real detail. Hence, Trinitarian doctrines are largely extra-biblical, human-made l in nature, relying on terms not found in Scripture, such as "substance."

 

[rakovsky]

When someone says they represented the whole of Christianity and it is obvious they didn't it's a point of argument that is worthy of pointing out as false.

This website defines Christian as according to the Nicene Creed. You have to go into the rules and policies section of the site.
JWs I think would not agree with that and would consider themselves part of Christianity.

But really when they say Ecumenical they don't mean every Christian, they mean it represents the Christian whole, collective community. Protestants and Orthodox usually look at it a bit differently, but they especially agree on at least the first four councils as "ecumenical".

 

[Hoghead1]

The rabbis conclude that since God cannot die, have a mother, or sleep, therefore Jesus either did not do anything of those things or He wasn't God.

Yes, very true and also true of the Arians and other anti-Trinitarian thinkers. God was taken to be an actus purus, a statically complete perfection, nothing could be added or subtracted from God, who is wholly immutable, without body, parts, passions, compassion.

 

[rakovsky]

The Trinity is implied in the Bible, but that's it; it is not worked out in any real detail. Hence, Trinitarian doctrines are largely extra-biblical, human-made l in nature, relying on terms not found in Scripture, such as "substance."

Hello, Hoghead.

I would be interested to see you writing more on my threads where I talked about Calvinism, since you seem reflective. I think you are a Neo-Calvinist like Kuyper, since you expressed "supranaturalism"?

 

[keltoi]

I guess I must just be a simple Christian because I read the Bible, I see what it says and if it's not in it it is not Biblical.
With regard to the Trinity, yes some group of old fellas sat down had a chat because someone was preaching something that they believed, and in this case they were correct, wasn't Biblical so they had to formulate a doctrine. However it stands to reason that they had it easy and could use scripture itself to back up that doctrine. Many other doctrines do not appear to have the Biblical backing that the doctrine of the Trinity does. To me the doctrine of Mary remaining a virgin is at best a guess and at worst it is a manipulation of the beliefs of what the people because there is nothing in the Bible, even the Apocrypha that indicates Mary remained a virgin. Also the verse that has already been quoted that Joseph did not know Mary until she had Jesus plus the verses that say Jesus had brothers and sisters indicate the exact opposite of official RCC doctrine.

 

[keltoi]

The Bible provides what we might call proto-Trinitarian language, but the theological articulations that came in later centuries developed out of the apostolic witness. It's unlikely that would we to sit down with St. Paul and speak of the Son as homoousios with the Father that he would understand what we mean, since that way of speaking came out of the Christological debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

That doesn't make the homoousian language "man-made" as in "wrong", but it is--strictly speaking--extra biblical. In the same way that the Canon of Scripture, the Bible, itself is extra-biblical.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't doubt that Paul would not understand what we meant if we spoke to him using such terminology simply because the word itself evolved later than Paul. Having said that the term homoousios was used by Gnostics many years before it was injected into doctrine at the Council of Nicea. I think what the "problem", if I may call it that, is even though councils sat down and formed doctrine, some excellent some rubbish, giving credit to councils for what is written in front of our eyes to me is like giving credit to Donald Trump for inventing Capitalism. It was always there but no one had really worked it like the councils did (or Trump did).

 

[keltoi]

This website defines Christian as according to the Nicene Creed. You have to go into the rules and policies section of the site.

Yes it does but to me the Nicene Creed is just common sense because what it contains is in the Bible. You can read the creed and look up the Bible and find what it is referring to, likewise the Westminster Confession of Faith is worded, and some even have the Biblical references there for people to check for themselves. These things are common sense to me but it doesn't mean I am obliged to agree with every doctrine every council come up with. To me unless the Bible backs the doctrine there is something else involved and that something else must be man.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This is true. If you're referring to the Father, it's correct that he doesn't have a mother.

The Lord God Almighty is not a man.
God is a man.

God does not sleep.
God slept.

Wow....so let me get this straight. Jesus is God because of the Trinity. Thus Mary is the mother of God. However the son is not eternal with the Father? The son was created with Mary? So much for the incarnation and the trinity....right? Please, just read what I wrote and stop throwing strawman arguments at me.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

Yes it does but to me the Nicene Creed is just common sense because what it contains is in the Bible. You can read the creed and look up the Bible and find what it is referring to, likewise the Westminster Confession of Faith is worded, and some even have the Biblical references there for people to check for themselves. These things are common sense to me but it doesn't mean I am obliged to agree with every doctrine every council come up with. To me unless the Bible backs the doctrine there is something else involved and that something else must be man.

The Ecumenical councils are common sense and Biblical for EOs.

BTW FYI the Westminster confession teaches infant baptism.