Abused texts of Scripture: What is your example?

[The Liturgist]

Those who actually believe "Mary is the Mother of God" are known by the frequency in which they come outright and state that belief. For for example - Lutherans come right out and say it.

By comparison - when we look at the actual Bible --

Jesus was called "The Son of God" dozens of times in the Bible. Since those that believe that - will frequently state it.

"Jesus Christ is called the Son of God more than 40 times in the Bible"

So you’re denying that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, having become incarnate by means of the Holy Ghost impregnating the Blessed Virgin Mary, and being fully God and fully Man without change, confusion, separation or division of His two natures?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So you’re denying that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, having become incarnate by means of the Holy Ghost impregnating the Blessed Virgin Mary, and being fully God and fully Man without change, confusion, separation or division of His two natures?

If Mary is not the mother of God, what is she? Step mother? Surrogate mother? Nanny? Child care specialist? Baby sitter?

 

[The Liturgist]

If Mary is not the mother of God, what is she? Step mother? Surrogate mother? Nanny? Child care specialist? Baby sitter?

Indeed, if Jesus Christ is God incarnate, then the Blessed Virgin Mary is his mother, “full stop” as our Commonwealth friends like to say (since that’s what they call the punctuation mark we call a period.)

This is the problem that people who have revived the Nestorian error don’t seem to understand: the indivisibility of God means that if Mary was the mother of any person of the Holy Trinity, she was the mother of God.

One thing I love about the Oriental Orthodox, especially the Coptic Orthodox church of our friend @dzheremi , is that they are the anti-Nestorian church par excellence. Their entire theological system is constructed around a denial of Nestorianism. They also share in common with orthodox Lutheranism an intense desire to use the principle of communicatio idiomatum in regards to Christology.

I hope @dzheremi and also @prodromos might join us to comment on this issue.

 

[trophy33]

Not materially, in so far as the similarity of their accounts is sufficient to verify the objective reality of the events they describe. Your understanding of “inerrant” seems to be focused on literal wording as opposed to the received interpretation.

How do you define inerrant, then? It should mean without any error. Wrong chronology of events, for example, is an error.

BTW, Bible never claims inerrancy.

 

[Soyeong]

Judge not, lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1)

In vain do they worship me teaching as doctrines, the commandments of men.’ (Mark 7:7)

Where there is no vision, the people perish. – Proverbs 29:18

So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:17

I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” 2 Sam. 7:23

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

1 Timothy 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

Colossians 2:14-16 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities[b] and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.

Galatians 3:24-25 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

 

[trophy33]

What contradictions do you have in mind?

See post #31.

 

[The Liturgist]

How do you define inerrant, then? It should mean without any error. Wrong chronology of events, for example, is an error.

BTW, Bible never claims inerrancy.

The Bible is without material error. Insofar as there exist discrepancies between, for example, the Gospels, these have the effect of validating the accounts given in the other and I would actually regard them as inspired, because there is just enough subtle difference to prove the story wasn’t fabricated but was being recalled by the four Evangelists, and also St. Paul in the case of the Institution Narrative, but none of these discrepancies represent material contradictions that could be categorized as errors.

 

[trophy33]

The Bible is without material error. Insofar as there exist discrepancies between, for example, the Gospels, these have the effect of validating the accounts given in the other and I would actually regard them as inspired, because there is just enough subtle difference to prove the story wasn’t fabricated but was being recalled by the four Evangelists, and also St. Paul in the case of the Institution Narrative, but none of these discrepancies represent material contradictions that could be categorized as errors.

So, inerrant does not mean "without errors", but "without serious theological errors".

It would be better to call it theologically inerrant than just inerrant, though. Because just "inerrant" leads to wrong ideas like to flat earthers.

 

[The Liturgist]

So, inerrant does not mean "without errors", but "without serious theological errors".

It would be better to call it theologically inerrant than just inerrant, though. Because just "inerrant" leads to wrong ideas like to flat earthers.

No, it means without errors, where an error is defined as a defect.

The discrepancies I referred to I believe are inspired and non-erroneous, since they cross-validate the four Gospel narratives. Without them the overall Gospel message would be much less believable.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that translation errors are a thing, but I disagree with you regarding the scale of the problem, since if one follows the Patristic exegesis of Scripture that provides enough material to correct all but the most serious and intentional mutilations, like the New World Translation’s intentional mangling of John 1:1 in the interests of promoting their Arian heresy.

 

[trophy33]

No, it means without errors, where an error is defined as a defect.

The discrepancies I referred to I believe are inspired and non-erroneous, since they cross-validate the four Gospel narratives. Without them the overall Gospel message would be much less believable.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that translation errors are a thing, but I disagree with you regarding the scale of the problem, since if one follows the Patristic exegesis of Scripture that provides enough material to correct all but the most serious and intentional mutilations, like the New World Translation’s intentional mangling of John 1:1 in the interests of promoting their Arian heresy.

Sorry, I still do not understand your reasoning/explanation. There are for example wrong citations of Jesus or wrong order of events, which is obviously an error. In Greek manuscripts, not in translations only.

 

[okay]

Not everyone who holds to inerrancy means the same thing by it. One example is the Chicago Statement that is something like 10 pages long, and claims inerrancy even in matters of science and history.

I personally think it is not even a useful category for thinking about ancient scriptures. The texts were written for theological reasons, with none of the modern notions of ‘accuracy’ in mind.

Anyway, back to the thread topic.

Romans 8:28
We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. (NABRE)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

If Mary is not the mother of God, what is she? Step mother? Surrogate mother? Nanny? Child care specialist? Baby sitter?

She is the mother of Jesus the man, not Mother of God. Mary was born, just like you and I are. Jesus the God was not. Jesus the man was born. Jesus was human and God, Mary is only human, not to be prayed to, not to be worshipped, she needed a Savior just like you and I do. She is not immortal, no where does it say she went to heaven. I suspect she will be raised from the dead, just like the rest of the saints once Jesus returns at His Second Coming.

 

[okay]

Another one

2 Chronicles 7:14
if then my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and heal their land. (NABRE).

I have heard this applied on many occasions as if the promise were made to the US as a country, when of course it was made to the people of Israel. I don’t think we can assume God will heal the US, although I am confident he pardons sins! Does this happen in other countries as well, or is it just a US thing?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

She is the mother of Jesus the man, not Mother of God.

Splitting the two natures of Christ. This is a big "No-No" in historical theology. It is called Nestoriansim and condemned has heresy at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Bad theology going on here.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Splitting the two natures of Christ. This is a big "No-No" in historical theology. It is called Nestoriansim and condemned has heresy at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Bad theology going on here.

I only care what the bible says. There is no scripture that says Mary is the Mother of God (that she existed before God of Creation) . Mary is human and teaching anything different is in contradiction to God's Word which is what we should follow. Jesus never elevated Mary the way so many people do now. It's really a sad teaching, one she probably would be mortified of.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I only care what the bible says. There is no scripture that says Mary is the Mother of God (that she existed before God of Creation) . Mary is human and teaching anything different is in contradiction to God's Word which is what we should follow. Jesus never elevated Mary the way so many people do now. It's really a sad teaching, one she probably would be mortified of.

According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).

Born of Mary allows this hypostatic union. Both God and Man.

A good class in Christology would be of benefit to you.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).

Born of Mary allows this hypostatic union. Both God and Man.

A good class in Christology would be of benefit to you.

Jesus was God and human, not Mary. The verses you quoted are about Jesus, not Mary. Mary is only referred to as the mother of Jesus Acts 1:14, not God.

Please quote once from the bible where Mary is ever referred to as the Mother of God. Or that she existed before God. This is all made up stuff that sadly people follow over following God's Word, which is to be the light to our path Psa 119:105

Guess we will agree to disagree, all gets sorted out soon enough.

 

[trophy33]

Jesus was God and human, not Mary. The verses you quoted about are about Jesus, not Mary. Mary is only referred to as the mother of Jesus Acts 1:14, not God.

Please quote once from the bible where Mary is ever referred to as the Mother of God. Or that she existed before God. This is all made up stuff that sadly people follow over following God's Word, which is to be the light to our path Psa 119:105

Guess we will agree to disagree, all gets sorted out soon enough.

They do not mean she was before God, only that Jesus was God and therefore they invented this controversial title to fight some historical issue. Not a good choice, imo, like many other things in "historical theology".

 

[SabbathBlessings]

They do not mean she was before God, only that Jesus was God and therefore they invented this controversial title to fight some historical issue. Not a good choice, imo, like many other things in "historical theology".

Its the only way that works through if she is "Mother of God" she would have to exist before God. Otherwise, she is mother of Jesus, our God who became human to save us, supernaturally born of Mary His human mother.

I like the fact though that we can agree on something.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Jesus was God and human, not Mary.

Jesus was Divine and not human before the Incarnation. Mary was not Divine before the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, the TWO NATURES BECOME ONE PERSON. You are stating there are two persons and two natures. Do some homework on this issue. Then you might want to post a thread with you conclusions. Probably take 10 to 20 hours of study. I am done with this conversation.