The snare of devotion to Mary.

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I simply pointed out that your Oral Traditions have no more, or less, validity than any Oral Traditions espoused by any other denomination. It becomes a matter of personal preference as to which Oral Traditions one chooses to believe. In a related matter, your own Magisterium has evolved your Oral Traditions over time so that what is considered to be Oral Tradition today in your denomination is certainly not the same as it was in the ninth century.

The Protestant denominations hold on to traditions that originated with Luther and Calvin in the 16th century (i.e., justification by faith alone). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, holds on to traditions that originated with Jesus and the Apostles. The holy traditions of the Church , i.e., the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ, original sin, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, do in a sense evolve as the Church grows in deeper understanding of the divine mysteries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Nothing changes but the terms we use to express that deeper understanding. The Church always taught that Mary was without sin ("full of grace and most highly favoured"), but what we are to understand by this has taken time to be fully grasped through much pondering. The same can be said for what Jesus, the Son of man, said: "I and the Father are one." Finally, there is a difference between the oral traditions and sacred Tradition. The former is the spoken word by Christ's ministers, while the latter is the unwritten word of God, that which is declared by the Holy Spirit, and belongs to the deposit of faith together with Scripture, the written word of God.

No individual Christian is at liberty to decide for themselves what should belong to the deposit of faith. That is for the Magisterium of the Church to decide. Christ founded a visible and hierarchical church on Peter and the Apostles so that the written and unwritten word of God should be faithfully preserved and transmitted from one generation to the next. The Catholic Church is one in faith because it is ruled and taught by a central teaching authority established by Christ through the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. All practicing Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. And they rightly understand that these teachings aren't a matter of personal preference. Protestantism has splintered into thousands of independent denominations, each with its own teaching and ruling authority, because it is heterogeneous by nature. It is diverse in practice and in doctrinal content because men have conferred authority upon themselves to teach what they privately judge has been handed down by Jesus and the Twelve according to their interpretations of Scripture. Right from the start, these religious leaders have rejected many holy ancient traditions and substituted them for their own, or they have relegated them to the status of being simply legitimate and worth considering, but not binding on all the faithful. By the way, there weren't any denominations in the 9th century, but only one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as Christ intended (Mt. 16:16-18).
;)

:angel:
 
Upvote 0

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Well, I see that you cannot find any reference to the Eucharist in this passage. Thus, it is absurd to conclude that Jesus was speaking of it to the folks in Capernaum.

Rather, Jesus, when questioned about His perplexing statements, replied, It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

What Jesus means is that one must have the light of faith to accept his words. Many disciples of Jesus abandoned him because they couldn't believe what he had just said about his flesh being real food and his blood real drink. Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically or teaching by a parable. Nor did he beckon those unfaithful disciples to come back so that he could clear up any misunderstanding by telling them what he really meant to say. He left them in their unbelief as he leaves you in yours.

In
John 6: 23-53, the original Greek word phago ("to eat" or "physically consume") is used nine times. So a symbolic interpretation is out of the question. Physical consumption is strongly emphasized here. In John 54, 56, 57, and 58, the evangelist uses an even more literal verb. The Greek word trogo means "to gnaw", "chew" or "crunch". The word is used on two other occasions in the NT (Mt. 24:38; Jn. 13:18) to literally mean gnaw on and chew meat. So even if the word phago might have a spiritual application, it doesn't when combined with the word trogo. There is not one verse in Scripture where trogo is used figuratively. In John 6:55, Jesus stresses that his flesh is "real" food and his blood is "real" drink. The Greek word John uses is alethes which means "really" and "truly". It is used by the speaker only when there are doubts concerning the reality of what he means to say. The Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they asked: “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).They wouldn't have asked this question by having doubted what they understood Jesus meant to say if they thought Jesus was speaking figuratively. The Greek word for flesh is sarx. It always literally means flesh. See John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39. The Jews knew that Jesus literally meant his own flesh, which explains why many of his own followers decided to leave him at this point. They didn't walk away because Jesus failed to provide a spiritual explanation. Jesus would have provided an explanation if he had spoken figuratively. He always explained the meanings of his parables, didn't he? Instead he asked his disciples if what he had said offended them (6:61). He even asked the Twelve if they wanted to leave, too (6:67). No, many who followed Jesus deserted him because they knew exactly what he literally meant which they found hard to believe for lack of faith, just as Protestants do today. They asked in John 6:60: "Who can listen to it?" In other words, "I can't believe my ears!"

Hence, Protestants who voice their objection to this Catholic dogma and attempt to refute it typically cite the phrase "the spirit gives life" (Jn. 6:63) to show that Jesus was speaking symbolically. However, Jesus used this phrase to stress that his disciples needed supernatural faith as opposed to human reasoning to understand and accept what he truly was saying. He even associated his disciples' disbelief with Judas' betrayal (6:64, 70). In
John 6:3, Jesus draws a comparison between the spirit and the flesh only to teach about the necessity of having supernatural faith as opposed to a natural understanding. There is not one place in all of Scripture where the word spirit is to be taken symbolically as an expression of figurative language beyond the context of faith. "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (Jn 3:6). The spirit has to do with that which is supernatural, flesh with that which is natural. The juxtaposition of the two mark two literal distinctions which oppose each other. In In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, for instance, Paul uses the spirit-flesh paradigm to teach that unspiritual people have not received the gift of faith, but are still in the flesh. Their natural passions keep them in bondage.

Proof from the Apostolic Tradition

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110)


"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165)


:angel:
 
  • Like
Reactions: patricius79
Upvote 0

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
My goodness! I simply agreed with you and you took such umbrage with my agreement. I hate to imagine what would have happened had I disagreed with you.

What are you talking about? :confused: We don't agree that the fathers of the Council of Trent substituted the Apostolic Tradition with traditions of their own.

:angel:
 
Upvote 0

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Absolutely. Your problem is that you have no verifiable proof that any of your Oral Tradition is actually what was orally transmitted. Or, more positively, you have exactly as much proof as do the EO, OO, and Copts and all other churches which claim a unique Oral Tradition which just happens to contradict yours. As I am sure you are aware, they say the very same things about you.

So, honestly, why should I believe any one of them and not you?

First of all, oral tradition is not sacred Tradition. The former is the transmitted spoken word of ministers of the gospel, who themselves are individually fallible and prone to corrupt what has been handed down. Sacred Tradition is the infallible unwritten word of God declared to the Church by the Holy Spirit which can only be rightly interpreted by the universal Magisterium of the Church: The College of Bishops in union with the Pope.

The Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, and Indian Orthodox Churches are collectively referred to as the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Oriental Orthodox Churches were united with Rome and Byzantium in a common profession of faith until the fifth century, when the 4th ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) proclaimed Christ to have two distinct natures--human and divine--united in one person. The Oriental Orthodox Churches acknowledge only the first three. Their theology holds that Christ has only one nature, a synthesis of the human and divine, as if Jesus is half God and half man. Apparently, this theology originated with Clement of Alexandria. So you should believe in the Apostolic Tradition which has been safeguarded by the Holy See of the Catholic Church.

Eastern Orthodoxy is a more complicated and lengthy matter to explain here and involves the political climate in the East leading up to the Great Schism. All I can say is both Churches have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology, and both proclaim the same faith in Christ. The minor differences in theology have arisen because since the Schism the Eastern Orthodox have refused to acknowledge the primacy of authority of the Bishop of Rome on the Chair of Peter. But historically, the Pope had the final word on controversial doctrinal matters that arose in the East the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honour among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honour without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible. At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honour among them.


In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures his apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32). The Popes exercised this special function at the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present and no one else (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: "Feed my lambs" (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as "these," as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of chief pastor and shepherd over them. Hence, we have references to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honour with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral authority and discipline as well.

A more substantive disagreement between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox concerns the role of the pope and the ecumenical councils in the Church. Both sides agree that ecumenical councils have the ability to infallibly define doctrines, but a question arises concerning which councils are ecumenical.


The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics also recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.
While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of
universal authority.

One reason the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils themselves since II Nicaea is the fact that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical since ll Nicaea. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is accepted by the whole church as such. But such a test is very problematic. Any number of bishops who are unhappy with a council’s result and dispute it can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the EO Church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority. I wouldn't accept any tradition as apostolic from any church if its own members can't claim that their beliefs are universally ratified by an ecumenical council and not all bishops are in agreement. In the Catholic Church, all bishops from around the entire world (no distinction between Estonians, Greeks, Serbs, and Russians) are in agreement with each other in union with the Pope on matters of faith and morals as defined by the Universal Magisterium and Ecumenical Councils post ll Nicaea. Catholics aren't divided by national boundaries. The Catholic Church is structured as Christ intended his Church to be and how it was in the first millennium, so that the Apostolic traditions could be faithfully safeguarded and handed on - transcending all national and cultural differences.


http://www.eastwestreport.org/articles/ew05201.htm


:angel:

480px-Second_Vatican_Council_by_Lothar_Wolleh_005.jpg

Ecumenical ll Vatican Council
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Protestant denominations hold on to traditions that originated with Luther and Calvin in the 16th century (i.e., justification by faith alone). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, holds on to traditions that originated with Jesus and the Apostles.
Do yourself a big favor and honestly look to see if anyone from scripture onward thought like Galatians 2:5 or Romans 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
and when something else was substituted.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I agree that the flesh profits nothing.

What I'm asking is: do you believe Christ's Flesh profits nothing?

If so, that clearly contradicts Christ's statement that He gives His flesh for the life of the world, and that we must eat His Flesh.

Likewise, one cannot deny that Mary is the Mother of God without deny God's Word, which says that Jesus is God.

Your problem is that if you believe that you must become a cannibal in order to merit eternal life you are in violation of the written Law of God which expressly forbids cannibalism. In addition, even your own Church fails to affirm that it feeds its communicants physical flesh and physical blood in its mass. Therefore, you are no better off than the rest of humanity in this regard.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
First of all, oral tradition is not sacred Tradition. The former is the transmitted spoken word of ministers of the gospel, who themselves are individually fallible and prone to corrupt what has been handed down. Sacred Tradition is the infallible unwritten word of God declared to the Church by the Holy Spirit which can only be rightly interpreted by the universal Magisterium of the Church: The College of Bishops in union with the Pope.

The Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, and Indian Orthodox Churches are collectively referred to as the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Oriental Orthodox Churches were united with Rome and Byzantium in a common profession of faith until the fifth century, when the 4th ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) proclaimed Christ to have two distinct natures--human and divine--united in one person. The Oriental Orthodox Churches acknowledge only the first three. Their theology holds that Christ has only one nature, a synthesis of the human and divine, as if Jesus is half God and half man. Apparently, this theology originated with Clement of Alexandria. So you should believe in the Apostolic Tradition which has been safeguarded by the Holy See of the Catholic Church.

Eastern Orthodoxy is a more complicated and lengthy matter to explain here and involves the political climate in the East leading up to the Great Schism. All I can say is both Churches have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology, and both proclaim the same faith in Christ. The minor differences in theology have arisen because since the Schism the Eastern Orthodox have refused to acknowledge the primacy of authority of the Bishop of Rome on the Chair of Peter. But historically, the Pope had the final word on controversial doctrinal matters that arose in the East the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honour among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honour without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible. At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honour among them.


In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures his apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32). The Popes exercised this special function at the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present and no one else (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: "Feed my lambs" (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as "these," as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of chief pastor and shepherd over them. Hence, we have references to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honour with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral authority and discipline as well.

A more substantive disagreement between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox concerns the role of the pope and the ecumenical councils in the Church. Both sides agree that ecumenical councils have the ability to infallibly define doctrines, but a question arises concerning which councils are ecumenical.


The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics also recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.
While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of
universal authority.

One reason the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils themselves since II Nicaea is the fact that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical since ll Nicaea. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is accepted by the whole church as such. But such a test is very problematic. Any number of bishops who are unhappy with a council’s result and dispute it can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the EO Church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority. I wouldn't accept any tradition as apostolic from any church if its own members can't claim that their beliefs are universally ratified by an ecumenical council and not all bishops are in agreement. In the Catholic Church, all bishops from around the entire world (no distinction between Estonians, Greeks, Serbs, and Russians) are in agreement with each other in union with the Pope on matters of faith and morals as defined by the Universal Magisterium and Ecumenical Councils post ll Nicaea. Catholics aren't divided by national boundaries. The Catholic Church is structured as Christ intended his Church to be and how it was in the first millennium, so that the Apostolic traditions could be faithfully safeguarded and handed on - transcending all national and cultural differences.


http://www.eastwestreport.org/articles/ew05201.htm


:angel:

480px-Second_Vatican_Council_by_Lothar_Wolleh_005.jpg

Ecumenical ll Vatican Council

There are some very significant differences between your branch of Christianity and the Orthodox branches. One, which has recently come to light on another thread through our mutual friend, Sculley, is that the Orthodox do not believe in a literal hell. This is starkly at odds with your church's understanding of the eternal state of the lost. Here is what your Catechism has to say about hell. The Orthodox deny this.

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your problem is that if you believe that you must become a cannibal in order to merit eternal life you are in violation of the written Law of God which expressly forbids cannibalism. In addition, even your own Church fails to affirm that it feeds its communicants physical flesh and physical blood in its mass. Therefore, you are no better off than the rest of humanity in this regard.



Do you believe that Christ's Flesh is of no avail, as you seemed to be arguing?


The Catholic Church believes that we must actually eat Christ's Flesh and Drink His Blood (John 6:53), and that Jesus is actually God, and that Mary is thus the Mother of God.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? If so, wouldn't that make Mary the Mother of God?
 
Upvote 0

Grafted In

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 15, 2012
2,060
553
Upper midwest
✟52,204.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not in total disagreement with Catholics on all matters, but if a Catholic could just help me understand why Peter, your first pope, made absolutely no reference to Mary in Scripture. If she is, as you say, eternally sinless, eternally a virgin and resides in heaven now as a major component of the God head it seems to me that the first pope would have at least made mention of that fact.
Can someone explain his silence on the matter?
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Do you believe that Christ's Flesh is of no avail, as you seemed to be arguing?


The Catholic Church believes that we must actually eat Christ's Flesh and Drink His Blood (John 6:53), and that Jesus is actually God, and that Mary is thus the Mother of God.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? If so, wouldn't that make Mary the Mother of God?

If, as you seem to believe, Christ's flesh and eating it is essential to salvation then why does your Church not provide it for you? The reality is that your Church adamantly condemns cannibalism, the eating of human flesh by anyone. What your Church does in the mass is to use bread and wine as symbolic of the physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Despite many fluffy words such as, "Really and actually the body of our Lord" the fact remains that your Church does not assert that is the physical flesh of Jesus Christ and the physical blood of Jesus Christ. Thus, if you believe you need to become a cannibal and dine on human flesh and drink human blood, then you will have to look very long and hard for such a dinner.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not in total disagreement with Catholics on all matters, but if a Catholic could just help me understand why Peter, your first pope, made absolutely no reference to Mary in Scripture.

First, when you say "Scripture", how do you know which books comprise Scripture? Secondly, how strong do you think arguments from silence are?

Thirdly, in answer to your question, I think there are many things which are false (such as the idea of Sola Scriptura) which are not found in Scripture, and many things which are true which are not in Scripture (such as the N.T. Canon, the Marian doctrines, and the definition of the Trinity). I believe these are not in Scripture because the time was not right yet for the Church to more deeply understand what had been handed on once for all.

What Scripture does say explicitly is that Mary conceived Jesus, and that she is the Mother of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If, as you seem to believe, Christ's flesh and eating it is essential to salvation then why does your Church not provide it for you? The reality is that your Church adamantly condemns cannibalism, the eating of human flesh by anyone. What your Church does in the mass is to use bread and wine as symbolic of the physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Despite many fluffy words such as, "Really and actually the body of our Lord" the fact remains that your Church does not assert that is the physical flesh of Jesus Christ and the physical blood of Jesus Christ. Thus, if you believe you need to become a cannibal and dine on human flesh and drink human blood, then you will have to look very long and hard for such a dinner.


Do you believe that Christ's Flesh is of no avail, as you seem to be arguing?

Also, do you believe that Jesus is God? I do; that is why I honor Mary as the Mother of God.
 
Upvote 0

Grafted In

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 15, 2012
2,060
553
Upper midwest
✟52,204.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Also, do you believe that Jesus is God? I do; that is why I honor Mary as the Mother of God.

Mary was not the mother of God. She was the mother of God incarnate. Big difference. Jesus Christ existed before she gave birth to Him. Furthermore, Jesus created Mary, His earthly mother. To expand that Truth to beyond what is written is not, in my opinion, Scriptural.
 
Upvote 0

Grafted In

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 15, 2012
2,060
553
Upper midwest
✟52,204.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe that Christ's Flesh is of no avail, as you seem to be arguing?

You're going to have to explain this in greater detain. I do not believe I've posted anything that supports you claim.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mary was not the mother of God. She was the mother of God incarnate. Big difference. Jesus Christ existed before she gave birth to Him. Furthermore, Jesus created Mary, His earthly mother. To expand that Truth to beyond what is written is not, in my opinion, Scriptural.

Where does the Bible say that "Mary was not the mother of God"?

It sounds like you believe that "Mother of God" means that Christ did not exist until Mary conceived Him.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You're going to have to explain this in greater detain. I do not believe I've posted anything that supports you claim.

I didn't address that question to you, who may well believe that Christ's Flesh avails (John 6:51)
 
Upvote 0

Grafted In

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 15, 2012
2,060
553
Upper midwest
✟52,204.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Christ is always God. The Blessed Mother is the Mother of God, no separation at all.

What can I say but that I totally disagree. Is Mary from everlasting to everlasting?
Was she here from the beginning?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Grafted In

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 15, 2012
2,060
553
Upper midwest
✟52,204.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where does the Bible say that "Mary was not the mother of God"?

It sounds like you believe that "Mother of God" means that Christ did not exist until Mary conceived Him.

On the contrary, that seems to stem from your posts. I do not understand how you were able to make that assumption from anything I've posted, anywhere on this board.
Seems as though we are speaking past one another.
 
Upvote 0