Mary

[Rick Otto]

Hitler didn't want to own ALL the real estate in the world, just that which bordered his own.

Still can't just be direct?
State your case.
In any case, it is not illegal to live on the border.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Are you always so easily confused on issues of substance? Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesustokos.
God always existed... before Mary. I haven't even had coffee yet & I can keep that much straight.

So can I. I pointed this out earlier in the thread but it went unanswered. I still do not understand why you are denying that Mary is the Theotokos.

Now how 'bout you show some marbled integrity and admit you shot from the hip with a blank.
Or would that threaten the integrity of your other illusions?
See, it realy only takes a clear mind to debunk nonsense & decipher gibberish. You realy don't need $10 Greek words and 2 thousand years of repitition to be intellectualy respectable.

I will admit nothing because you are saying exactly what Nestorius said some 1500 years ago - Mary is Christotokos, but NOT Theotokos. These aren't cheap words. Heck, I'll even rephrase it - some ancient heretic said Mary was the mother of Jesus the man, but was NOT the mother of God. We are saying the two natures, divine and human, are not divisible, and to say that Mary was not the mother of God is to divide them - heretical since day one.

 

[E.C.]

So can I. I pointed this out earlier in the thread but it went unanswered. I still do not understand why you are denying that Mary is the Theotokos.

Probably because people just take the title at face value thinking that Mary gave birth to the Trinity instead of either A) looking into Council of Ephesus, 431 or B) listening to those who can explain why she is the Theotokos (as has been done in this thread at least three times)

 

[Oblio]

or C) they are Romophobes and subscribe to the view that if Roman Catholics believe it then it must be false.

 

[Oblio]

The fact remains that if you deny that Mary is the Theotokos, then you either deny that Christ is fully man, or you deny that Christ is God. Either denial is heresy.

 

[Rick Otto]

I deny neither and don't indulge in sophisticated nonsense.

 

[E.C.]

or C) they are Romophobes and subscribe to the view that if Roman Catholics believe it then it must be false.

My personal favorite.

 

[Rick Otto]

So can I. I pointed this out earlier in the thread but it went unanswered. I still do not understand why you are denying that Mary is the Theotokos.

I actualy DIDN'T deny it.
I just don't endorse it because it is only true in such a narrow sense, that it sounds like heresy on the face of it. God always existed. To say God had a mother is a distortion that is completely misleading.

I will admit nothing because you are saying exactly what Nestorius said some 1500 years ago - Mary is Christotokos, but NOT Theotokos.

You're makin' stuff up. Cut it out. I said "Jesustokos", not "Christotokos".

These aren't cheap words.

That is why I bother to take issue at all. Religious fantasies cheapen spiritual realities.

Heck, I'll even rephrase it - some ancient heretic said Mary was the mother of Jesus the man, but was NOT the mother of God.

Good for him. At least he wasn't afraid to be bullied by any sophistications of costumed pretenders.

We are saying the two natures, divine and human, are not divisible, and to say that Mary was not the mother of God is to divide them - heretical since day one.

Well what "we say" is only what "we say" and your notion of indivisibility is limited by the stiffness in your intellectual necks.
It is completely divisible as a matter of topic for discussion even if it is indivisibly united in reality. It is indivisible in the sense that the physical & spiritual is united in Jesus, but that unification was accomplished by God, not by Mary. All she did was give birth to Jesus, who had the two natures indivisibly within Him, she had no instrumentality whatsoever in that unification, rather she simply gave birth to the vessel wherein the two were indivisibly united.
Heresyphobes wax delusional over minute details to protect their facade of religious correctness, a variation on political correctness - both are pathologies.

But you're still a great bunch to picnic with!

 

[sunlover1]

I work from 3-11:30+, so I'm a cultural outcast of sorts.

Not to mention a harry tick (So I've read in this thread )
Not MY opinion, mind you.

Golly, I didn't realize I was gonna be seen bitin' heads off by my favorite girlfre'n-in-Christ!

You're busted, but not for head biting, just for making
honest remarks, in a delightfully eloquent manner.
You're entitled to your understanding of Jesus' birth.
It's a fascinating study, and IMO, way above our
understanding.

Sorry ya had to see that. I'll go get some coffee brewin' & try to be more friendly, brown-eyes.
Good mornin' sunshine!

NONSENSE, you're a sweety, always.
I'm sure even your sparring pals love ya.
Right guys?


Yeah, Chris Angel, last night, was "hypnotizing" chickens. Anyone else see that show?


OLD trick, even a kid can accomplish lol.
So your reference to it surprised me.

GREAT to see you here.
sunlover

 

[E.C.]

I hate having to quote myself...

Digging up the logic from the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431:

-Christ is 100% God, 100% Man in the same body.
-Mary brought Christ into the world, in other words, gave birth to Christ.
-Christ is God, thus Mary gave birth to God.
-Final Analysis: Mary is the Theotokos (the God-bearer)

The part where Nestorius messed up, was the first part. Because he did not want to call Mary the Theokos, he concluded that she only brought Christ's humanity into the world and then concluded that Christ was in two separate bodies: God and man. (or something similar to that).

The part that many Protestants leave out from this Council, is that Mary is to be called the Theotokos. While some may acknowledge the Christ supposedly being two separate beings, they still forget the Theotokos part.

To say that Mary did not give birth to God, is to say that she did not bring God into the world, which is the same as saying that Christ was two separate beings. Granted, she did not give birth to the Trinity (which is something sometimes misunderstood) she did bring Christ into the world who is God.

 

[sunlover1]

I hate having to quote myself...

But you CAN understand the confusion cant you?

This is one of those things IMO that's way beyond our understanding.

mary giving birth to God does indeed sound incredible, since God always was..

I can understand this view, and I'm not even a heretic.



Discussion is always good, I love discussion.
But it's best to approach such deep subjects
with an open mind, knowing that we can
and do err.

Seems just when I think I know something,
God gives me a wake up call. lol.

love ya,
SL

 

[E.C.]

How's it going Emperor?

Quite well, how about yourself?

mary giving birth to God does indeed sound incredible, since God always was..

I can understand this view, and I'm not even a heretic.

I can see why someone would understand it.

On the surface, the title Theotokos looks like: before Mary there was no God. Yet when one looks into things that is not so. Especially since this issue was covered and solved about 1,500 some odd years ago.

As they said at Ephesus in 431 AD: Mary brought Christ into the world. Christ is God and man in one person. Since Mary brought Christ (who is God and man) into the world, she is the Theotokos - God-bearer or Birth-giver of God.

 

[PaladinValer]

Thanks PV.

You're most welcome dude!

I have the strangest feeling of deja-vu, what with Nestorianism rearing its ugly head yet again on this forum....

Doctor of the Church: "Well Jesus, I have good news and bad news about heresies"
Jesus: "Gimme the good news first."
Doctor: "The good news is that there have been very few new heresies since Iconoclasm"
Jesus: "What could possibly be the bad news?"
Doctor: "The bad news is that the old ones keep getting reincarnated"
Jesus: "Is Outrage!"

((Sorry; baaaaad humor))

Why do I suddenly feel like I'm at The Inquisition?

Perhaps because you let yourself get into this situation?

Answer: Yes!

I asked three questions. To which does the "yes" go to?

(But Mary was only human, & flesh only produces flesh, otherwise you're getting into some very deep religious nonsense, which is worse than heresy)

Was Jesus God in her womb?

Do you know what an Incarnation is? Do you know what the word means?

And you seem to be woefully ignorant about what orthodoxy (which would include Orthodoxy) teaches about this matter.

:

Theology posters are expected to understand that accusations of heresy, false doctrine, idolatry, anti-Christ, cult, non-Christian beliefs, anti-semitism, Zionism, etc., are very emotionally-laden. They are not conducive to clear discussion. While they are not forbidden in the context of a discussion (with evidence, examples, and/or support), they are discouraged by themselves, as terms of insult.

Did you read that yourself?

in the face of Marian Devotion.

Marian Devotions are nothing more than asking the Blessed Mother of Salvation to pray for us.

PV,

'Strawman WDBT' is compliance with those who would claim that proper debating style includes an explanation of why the fallacy was committed.

WDBT == 'We Don't Believe That'

Ahhhhh. Many thanks! I even got a chance to use my newfound knowledge too.

Makes sense (first part) I just couldn't recall any official Anglican stance on the matter.

I think it was just about over a year ago that we came out with a stance on St. Mary the Theotokos. If you are interested, I'd be happy to connect you to the document.

Bah! I say read up on thine history. Especially the period of the Ecumenical Councils. But that would mean going outside of the Bible, now wouldn't it?

Yeah. I mean, history is of the Devil; everyone knows that.

Marbles I got plenty, but not more marbles than brains, as in the case of trying to accuse me of your half-witted deduction that because Mary could only reproduce flesh, that divinity could not be resident within that flesh.

Why don't you, instead of beating around the bush, explain in your own words what you think we believe, and perhaps we can show you how either 1) we are right or, if the case may be, 2) you're arguing a Straw Man [and WDBT].

Are you always so easily confused on issues of substance? Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesustokos.
God always existed... before Mary. I haven't even had coffee yet & I can keep that much straight.

What is an Incarnation? What happens when a deity, spirit, other other divine being incarnates upon the Earth?

Now how 'bout you show some marbled integrity and admit you shot from the hip with a blank.
Or would that threaten the integrity of your other illusions?

We don't need to because we are not wrong. The fact that we are not going to compromise right orthodoxy shows our solid integrity.

See, it realy only takes a clear mind to debunk nonsense & decipher gibberish. You realy don't need $10 Greek words and 2 thousand years of repitition to be intellectualy respectable.

You haven't debunked anything but repeated the same old Nestorian line.

So what now? The Bible isn't enough?

The Bible proves you wrong.

Heaven forbid we do without a predatory uberclass in costume with props to tell us what & how to think? Have you been hypnotizing chickens again?

Saith the fox to the grapes.

I deny neither and don't indulge in sophisticated nonsense.

Too late; you've already made a position.

I actualy DIDN'T deny it.
I just don't endorse it because it is only true in such a narrow sense, that it sounds like heresy on the face of it. God always existed. To say God had a mother is a distortion that is completely misleading.

What is an Incarnation?

You're makin' stuff up. Cut it out. I said "Jesustokos", not "Christotokos".

Same difference in use. A rose by anyother name smells just as sweet.

That is why I bother to take issue at all. Religious fantasies cheapen spiritual realities.

So you deny the Divinity or Humanity of Jesus?

 

[sunlover1]

Quite well, how about yourself?

GREAT to hear that.
Me? Hmm, wont complain lol

I can see why someone would understand it.

Uh oh, the wink is worrisome lol.

On the surface, the title Theotokos looks like: before Mary there was no God. Yet when one looks into things that is not so. Especially since this issue was covered and solved about 1,500 some odd years ago.

K

As they said at Ephesus in 431 AD: Mary brought Christ into the world.

Christ is God and man in one person.

Since Mary brought Christ (who is God and man) into the world, she is the Theotokos - God-bearer or Birth-giver of God.

WOW.

Hey, I'm not choosing sides here, because it's not
my area of expertise. Don't even know much about
the subject actually lol.
BUT..

It's sort of shaky ground imo to say Mary's the mother
of GOD.

I mean.. God has no mother.
I understand Jesus is God.
But you realise that even Jesus
doesnt know everything.

Well......
Matt 24:36

So there is distinction in that verse.
Which means God allows distinction.
So why not with the birth?

*ducks and waits for the H word.

 

[E.C.]

Uh oh, the wink is worrisome lol.

As it should be! Fear the wink!
Lol. I have too much fun here!

Hey, I'm not choosing sides here, because it's not
my area of expertise. Don't even know much about
the subject actually lol.

Nor do I. But St. Cyril of Alexandria does!

It's sort of shaky ground imo to say Mary's the mother
of GOD.

I mean.. God has no mother.
I understand Jesus is God.
But you realise that even Jesus
doesnt know everything.

It does not mean that before Mary there was no Trinity or no God the Son (Christ).
It means that because she gave birth to Him, she is the Theotokos.

 

[Oblio]

I find it odd that many who endlessly analyze and spend time studying Holy Scripture so as to understand the truth hesitate to do the same with the Christological statement of calling Mary the Theotokos. They then retreat and say: ' ... can't do it, it is misleading or confusing ...'

 

[Rick Otto]

I find it odd that many who endlessly analyze and spend time studying Holy Scripture so as to understand the truth hesitate to do the same with the Christological statement of calling Mary the Theotokos. They then retreat and say: ' ... can't do it, it is misleading or confusing ...'

No hesitation here.
Can do it, but it only takes a glance to see what's wrong with it.

 

[Rick Otto]

((Sorry; baaaaad humor))
Props for having some!

Perhaps because you let yourself get into this situation?

You mean by partying with religious lawyers?

I asked three questions. To which does the "yes" go to?

I think I meant yes to all three.

Was Jesus God in her womb?

As much as He was before He was in her womb.

Do you know what an Incarnation is? Do you know what the word means?

Of course I do, but I'm sure I haven't embellished it with religious affection, if that's what you mean.

And you seem to be woefully ignorant about what orthodoxy (which would include Orthodoxy) teaches about this matter.

Yeah, I don't waste my intelleigence on what can be easily dismissed with relevant scripture.

Did you read that yourself?

You're funny. I never play the "H Card", but I do like to make people who throw it at me, choke on it.

Marian Devotions are nothing more than asking the Blessed Mother of Salvation to pray for us.

"Nothing more"
You guys alternately marginalize & maximize any issue whenever it serves your rationale - religious affection.

Why don't you, instead of beating around the bush, explain in your own words what you think we believe, and perhaps we can show you how either 1) we are right or, if the case may be, 2) you're arguing a Straw Man [and WDBT].

That statement was absolutely direct. It was in my own words & it stated explicitly what the person who said it to me (not "we") believed. You already said what you believe - Mary is the mother of God, and I already told what is wrong with that.
I can get you half-price on a dead horse & a used whip if you're interested.

We don't need to because we are not wrong. The fact that we are not going to compromise right orthodoxy shows our solid integrity.

Solid: extremely dense.

You haven't debunked anything but repeated the same old Nestorian line.

You're trippin', now. I never denied His divinity, His humanity, or tried to define them as somehow resident but not united. You realy have to getover your religious education. It's getting in the way of your ability to have a respectful & intelligent conversation.

The Bible proves you wrong.

Only when I swallow camels.

Saith the fox to the grapes.

Back away from the incense for awhile

So you deny the Divinity or Humanity of Jesus?

Like I told you 2 or 3 times now, I deny neither, nor do I induldge in any sophisticated nonsense about it, or pose triumphant while slingin' the "H" word at anybody for thinkin' different. Get a grip, Pal.

 

[PaladinValer]

You mean by partying with religious lawyers?

No.

I think I meant yes to all three.

One was not a yes-no question.

As much as He was before He was in her womb.

Yes or no: Was Jesus God in her womb?

Of course I do, but I'm sure I haven't embellished it with religious affection, if that's what you mean.

Answer the questions please. Do you know what an Incarnation is? Do you know what the word means?

Yeah, I don't waste my intelleigence on what can be easily dismissed with relevant scripture.

Which none is provided, conveniently (and unsurprisingly) enough.

You're funny. I never play the "H Card", but I do like to make people who throw it at me, choke on it.

Compared to the others, how many times have used the word "heresy," excluding this one time?

And I don't see anyone choking on it, nor do I see anyone posting nearly as much negative sarcasm as I see you doing.

"Nothing more"
You guys alternately marginalize & maximize any issue whenever it serves your rationale - religious affection.

No, we just go by the facts.

That statement was absolutely direct.

I grade papers. That was an extremely indirect statement.

It was in my own words & it stated explicitly what the person who said it to me (not "we") believed. You already said what you believe - Mary is the mother of God, and I already told what is wrong with that.
I can get you half-price on a dead horse & a used whip if you're interested.

In other words, it sounds like you wish to go around believing in your own self-conceived ideas of what you think we believe instead of actually learning what we truly do believe.

Solid: extremely dense.

Dense is not answering a few, simple questions.

You're trippin', now. I never denied His divinity, His humanity, or tried to define them as somehow resident but not united.

You do implicitly.

Person A: "I believe Jesus is both human and Divine"
Person B: "Great! Glad to know you recognize St. Mary the Theotokos as the Mother of God"
Person A: "I don't believe that"
Person B: "Then you don't believe Jesus is Divine"
Person A: "I just told you I do"
Person B: "You say you do but in practice you don't, which makes your statement void. If you say St. Mary the Theotokos isn't the Mother of God, then that says that Jesus was not God in the womb."

Simple as that.

You realy have to getover your religious education. It's getting in the way of your ability to have a respectful & intelligent conversation.

Respectful? Like refusing to answer simple questions? Like the language you use in this post?

Intelligent? You refuse to use simple theological terms. That is unintelligent.

Take the log out of your eye please.

Only when I swallow camels.

Then stop swallowing camels.

Back away from the incense for awhile

Really respectful! I'll use this example when I go over hypocricy with my catechumen students.

Like I told you 2 or 3 times now, I deny neither, nor do I induldge in any sophisticated nonsense about it, or pose triumphant while slingin' the "H" word at anybody for thinkin' different. Get a grip, Pal.

Why don't you practice what you preach?

 

[Yeznik]

Then stop swallowing camels.

LOL! I laughed so I hard I choked.