Mariolatry?

[d taylor]

Yes, but the flip side of that is that each Person is God fully in Himself. Jesus Christ is God - full stop. Not "part of God," not part God part man.

-
​

Too bad you never understand the position on Jesus that has been stated. Jesus is fully God and fully man never said Jesus was part anything.

 

[ARBITER01]

So it is fine to say Jesus is God, without having to clarify that Jesus is NOT the Father and NOT the Holy Spirit, but if we say Mary is the Mother of God, common sense goes out the window?

If you said that Mary was the surrogate mother of GOD, that would be more in alignment with scripture since He was a child from The Holy Spirit.

 

[d taylor]

She gave birth to the Son of God who is God.
She did not give birth to the Father who is God.
She did not give birth to the Holy Spirit who is God.

Is it really that hard for you to understand?

-

​

Oh the insulter still can not reply to a question without insulting the questioner.

Show show me where i ever stated that i did not understand who Mary gave birth to.

 

[prodromos]

If you said that Mary was the surrogate mother of GOD, that would be more in alignment with scripture since He was a child from The Holy Spirit.

Utter nonsense!
He is the same flesh as His mother. She was no surrogate.

 

[ARBITER01]

Utter nonsense!
He is the same flesh as His mother. She was no surrogate.

She was only a vessel to bring the Son into the world, hence a surrogate. She agreed to the childbirth from another.

 

[d taylor]

She gave birth to the Son of God who is God.
She did not give birth to the Father who is God.
She did not give birth to the Holy Spirit who is God.

Is it really that hard for you to understand?
For nearly 2000 years there has been absolutely no confusion amongst Christians as to the meaning of "Mother of God" regarding who it was Mary gave birth to. It is only a small portion of Western Christians who now cannot seem to wrap their heads around it.

-
​

Why are you capitalizing mother are you ascribing divinity to Mary

 

[d taylor]

Utter nonsense!
He is the same flesh as His mother. She was no surrogate.

-
​

Is that why your theology has to state Mary was sinless.

 

[prodromos]

-
​

Why are you capitalizing mother are you ascribing divinity to Mary

"Mother of God" is a Christological title. That is why I capitalise it.

 

[prodromos]

-
​

Is that why your theology has to state Mary was sinless.

That is not Eastern Orthodox theology. It is not necessary for her to be sinless to give birth to God.

 

[KingdomLeast]

"Mother of God" is a Christological title. That is why I capitalise it.

Really? And where, may I ask is that title found in Scripture?

 

[prodromos]

Really? And where, may I ask is that title found in Scripture?

What rock did you just crawl out from under?

 

[ARBITER01]

She was only a vessel to bring the Son into the world, hence a surrogate. She agreed to the childbirth from another.

You know, the more I think about it, surrogate mother of GOD has a slight ring to it.

 

[jas3]

Too bad you never understand the position on Jesus that has been stated. Jesus is fully God and fully man never said Jesus was part anything.

You said earlier that Mary gave birth to Jesus's human nature but not His divine nature. If Jesus, the person, is fully God and fully man, then that's impossible. Mary gave birth to the person Jesus Christ, God the Son, Who is fully God and fully man.

 

[prodromos]

You know, the more I think about it, surrogate mother of GOD has a slight ring to it.

Smells like heresy

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

Very well said.

This is why we adhere to scripture accounts, not church teachings or traditions. It is scripture that is GOD breathed, not church teachings.

Saint Paul wrote in the scriptures to "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

 

[ARBITER01]

Smells like heresy

Deifying Mary is heresy.

She was nothing more than a chosen vessel for the birth of GOD's Son, but she had to agree to it before it could happen, hence a surrogate. Sorry if the truth hurts, but not really.

 

[ARBITER01]

Saint Paul wrote in the scriptures to "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

I agree.

Scripture and word of mouth tradition must never disagree or contradict, but Holy Spirit inspired scripture will ultimately be the go-to source over tradition for truth because people can lie too easily.

 

[prodromos]

Deifying Mary is heresy.

No one is doing that.

She was nothing more than a chosen vessel for the birth of GOD's Son, but she had to agree to it before it could happen, hence a surrogate. Sorry if the truth hurts, but not really.

I'm sorry you believe heresy.

 

[Guojing]

Utter nonsense!
He is the same flesh as His mother. She was no surrogate.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Perhaps to be more scripturally accurate, it is like sinful flesh, which all human beings have, including Mary. But Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh but not sinful flesh.

So no, its not the same flesh as his mother.

 

[ARBITER01]

No one is doing that.

I'm sorry you believe heresy.

Actually, I'm sorry that you can't believe scripture.