Terms Queen of heaven and Fully God and fully man... But at the same time?

[prodromos]

Veiled flame..

Oh my, such hypocrisy.

 

[Alithis]

So when did God the Word stop being God?

-CryptoLutheran

When he emptied himself of his heavenly state and “became flesh” just as scripture plainly states.
As you yourself said even at 12 yrs old he said I must be about my father's business..because he knew his father..GOD in heaven was still GOD and still in heaven .he was no longer with his father he had come forth from him and had now become flesh. a mortal man .and he prayed to his father GOD in heaven .
And later he said my GOD why have you forsaken me.
And he also said “I am come from the father and I will return to the father from whence I came ”
Because even Jesus is bought into subjection to the father at the end of all things .this too is scripture.

And the whole point .you worship Mary and desperately try to justify doing so.
It have you taken her image renounced it burnt it and repented..please send us the vid.

 

[kepha31]

For most of my life iv heard this terminology.
That Jesus was fully God and fully man. ...“at the same time ”
But is it true ?

Yes. The incarnation transcends reason, but does not go against reason.

Yes this is poking a stick into a doctrinal hornet nest.
But not to detract from the word made flesh ..but rather to look into OTHER erroneous and even blasphemic terms which have their defense ONLY in the establishment of the words “fully man and fullxy God at the same time." You seem to be making a division between the divine and the human. Jesus was a Person, not a metaphorical Oreo cookie.

I establish the setting of approach from .
That Mary is absolutely Not the mother of God nor the queen of heaven.

Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is God, and she is His mother...unless you want to argue that Jesus is not God, and/or Mary is not His mother. The matter of Christ's identity as a Person was resolved in the mid 4th century, where the teaching of the Apostles was further developed to refute the Nestorian heresy.

[quoteAnd such elevation of “the created ” is no less then Idolatary .

Mary is honored because she deserves to be. Jesus loved(s) His mother and we think it's a good idea to be like Jesus. (like the Bible says) But she is not worshiped. There is not a single text in 2000 instructing Catholics or Orthodox to worship Mary. The false charge is an invention by ignorant anti-Catholic bigots. Just because she has a title you refuse to understand does not mean idolatry.

These titles given to Mary are only possible if Jesus was fully God at the same time as being fully man .
But scripture never directly states that to be the case.
It is a collection of assumptions added by man .
It is horrendously mingled with pagan religion .
Not to mention utterly Unrequired for salvation.
Since it is utterly unrequired, why is it added and by whom ，seeing that NONE of the apostles EVER included it in ANY of their epistles or teachings.

you said: "But not to detract from the word made flesh"
You contradict yourself. "word" means the pre-existing divine logos. John 1:1.

 

[Alithis]

A well deserved gang up IMO.
I don't doubt it.

While I agree with you on a few things - many of your arguments don't hold water and when you can't adequately defend them you run like a rabbit.

Yes it does.

Yes He was.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...............And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us"

If you have a Bible handy, I suggest you open it.

You don't read what you quote...
Does it say the word became flesh? Yes. And Mary birthed forth that flesh into the world.
Does it's at the word became God? No.
And Mary did not birth nor mother God.
The father remains GOD his word remains his word. His word is equal in authority to him who speaks it.
But his word is subject to him who speaks it.
JustvasvJesus said..I do not speak of myself but only what the father says.

Why..? Because words never speak of themselves they are spoken by the speaker. Hence the word is always subject to the speaker.
The speaker spoke.... His word became flesh ..
Mary is the mother of that flesh but not the mother of the one who spoke out that word.

It is blasphemy to call anything the mother of God.
Everyone knows a mother has authority over a child .to call any created being the mother of God ..no matter how much people deny it .mis to give that being higher place then the most high God..

This is utterly hateful to do.it dishonored the most high in every aspect. No one who truly loves God would continue in such abhorrent idolatry.

 

[Alithis]

Yes. The incarnation transcends reason, but does not go against reason. Mary is honored because she deserves to be. Jesus loved(s) His mother and we think it's a good idea to be like Jesus. (like the Bible says) But she is not worshiped. There is not a single text in 2000 instructing Catholics or Orthodox to worship Mary. The false charge is an invention by ignorant anti-Catholic bigots. Just because she has a title you refuse to understand does not mean idolatry.



you said: "But not to detract from the word made flesh"
You contradict yourself. "word" means the pre-existing divine logos. John 1:1.

Referencing long winded posts about the opinions of long dead men .is not direct unambiguous bible scripture .
It is off topic
Ref post #2

 

[prodromos]

Referencing long winded posts about the opinions of long dead men .is not direct unambiguous bible scripture .
It is off topic
Ref post #2

But that is what your posts are, the opinions of long dead men who were long ago determined to be teaching heresy

 

[stuart lawrence]

But that is what your posts are, the opinions of long dead men who were long ago determined to be teaching heresy

Did Jesus teach heresy?

Now this is eternal life( note what constitutes eternal life) that they may know you( the father) the only TRUE God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
John 17:3

 

[Alithis]

What I love about the book of revelation is that he testifies of one of the most precise looks into the presence of God we have.
And there is a notable absence.
The utter absence of a goddess in any form .Mary is not there nor is there any place in that throne for her.

In fact mention of her is absent from The book if revelation.

Inserting her into leadership in any form is itself a complete denial of the God head.
The rcc touts the trinity doctrine more vehemently then anyone else..then spend all thier time trying to force in FOURTH person into the ruling party.
It is the most misguided action l have ever observed.it.is in fact an insane practice.

Having stated with thier lips that Christ Jesus is all ,that God is triune..they then mangle warp add And do violence to scripture in the futile pursuits of inserting this FOURTH personage into a ruling position .

This is usurping at its highest level .it has no origin with God but can only come from the one who has always desired to “be like the most High”...
That old serpent the devil And the Dragon. There is no other origin .


”And whenever the living creatures give glory and honour and thanksgiving to the one who sits upon the throne, who lives for timeless ages, the twenty-four elders prostrate themselves before him who is seated upon the throne and worship the one who lives for timeless ages. They cast their crowns before the throne and say, “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things and by your will they exist and were created...”
-----
“Then I heard every creature(every creature..includes mary) in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!".....

There is none other worthy of this honour.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You don't read what you quote...
Does it say the word became flesh? Yes. And Mary birthed forth that flesh into the world.
Does it's at the word became God? No.
And Mary did not birth nor mother God.

I believe the Word became flesh at conception. By this above you obviously disagree with me and most other Christians about that.

Are you saying that the Word became flesh sometime after birth?

Would that be at 12, at His baptism, at the cross, at the resurrection or what?

Please explain.

The father remains GOD his word remains his word. His word is equal in authority to him who speaks it.
But his word is subject to him who speaks it.
JustvasvJesus said..I do not speak of myself but only what the father says.

No kidding?

Do you know of anyone here who disagrees with that?

Why..? Because words never speak of themselves they are spoken by the speaker. Hence the word is always subject to the speaker.
The speaker spoke.... His word became flesh ..
Mary is the mother of that flesh but not the mother of the one who spoke out that word.

"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

It is blasphemy to call anything the mother of God.
Everyone knows a mother has authority over a child .to call any created being the mother of God ..no matter how much people deny it .mis to give that being higher place then the most high God..This is utterly hateful to do.it dishonored the most high in every aspect. No one who truly loves God would continue in such abhorrent idolatry.

While I would not call Mary the Mother of God myself - it is technically correct to use those words.

So long as it is understood and seen that Mary is mother in the context of birthing the Word of God - I can live with the term.

Trouble is that it is not just the term itself which is in dispute but the position to which she has been exalted to in Heaven by many in the church which is in dispute.

In that later respect - I agree with you and I support your statements.

However you have fumbled the ball somewhere along the line. You are saying things which are incorrect.

I never thought I'd see the day that I would be siding with those who venerate Mary above what is obviously called for in the scriptures.

But when you are wrong in some things you say, I simply must join them in their critique of your inaccurate statements.

If you would leave off the misguided statements and stick to normal arguments against the ultra veneration of Mary and the saints - I would join in with you gladly.

But you have gone way beyond that in the OP and later in the thread as well.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When he emptied himself of his heavenly state and “became flesh” just as scripture plainly states.
As you yourself said even at 12 yrs old he said I must be about my father's business..because he knew his father..GOD in heaven was still GOD and still in heaven .he was no longer with his father he had come forth from him and had now become flesh. a mortal man .and he prayed to his father GOD in heaven .
And later he said my GOD why have you forsaken me.
And he also said “I am come from the father and I will return to the father from whence I came ”
Because even Jesus is bought into subjection to the father at the end of all things .this too is scripture.

So then Jesus isn't God. That's what you're saying. The Word stopped being God when the Word became flesh, therefore Jesus isn't God.

And the whole point .you worship Mary and desperately try to justify doing so.
It have you taken her image renounced it burnt it and repented..please send us the vid.

I told you my conditions, if you destroy all the images of your own mother, and your refusal to destroy images of your own mother means that you worship your own mother as a pagan goddess. Please stop practicing idolatry and destroy all those images of your mother.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Neogaia777]

Are you just being sarcastic, or are you really asking if what I said was truth? I want to make sure before I get back to you with sarcasm

No, I'm not being sarcastic at all, I promise... I meant it genuinely and sincerely... Promise...

I genuinely wanted to know whether or not Mary had other biological children besides Jesus...

I thought she had, but you said she didn't (I think?) and I was genuinely wondering if that was true or not...?

God Bless!

 

[Alithis]

I believe the Word became flesh at conception. By this above you obviously disagree with me and most other Christians about that.

Are you saying that the Word became flesh sometime after birth?

Would that be at 12, at His baptism, at the cross, at the resurrection or what?

Please explain.

No kidding?

Do you know of anyone here who disagrees with that?

"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

While I would not call Mary the Mother of God myself - it is technically correct to use those words.

So long as it is understood and seen that Mary is mother in the context of birthing the Word of God - I can live with the term.

Trouble is that it is not just the term itself which is in dispute but the position to which she has been exalted to in Heaven by many in the church which is in dispute.

In that later respect - I agree with you and I support your statements.

However you have fumbled the ball somewhere along the line. You are saying things which are incorrect.

I never thought I'd see the day that I would be siding with those who venerate Mary above what is obviously called for in the scriptures.

But when you are wrong in some things you say, I simply must join them in their critique of your inaccurate statements.

If you would leave off the misguided statements and stick to normal arguments against the ultra veneration of Mary and the saints - I would join in with you gladly.

But you have gone way beyond that in the OP and later in the thread as well.

See ..you quote scripture.
Stick to scripture the in the last breath depart from them .
The word was with God before creation.
Mary Didnt birth the word..
She birthed the flesh that the word became.
She did not birth God nor his word.
Only the flesh Man .

This is quite obvious.
It is only warped by those seeking to justify Mary worship.

 

[Alithis]

So then Jesus isn't God. That's what you're saying. The Word stopped being God when the Word became flesh, therefore Jesus isn't God.



I told you my conditions, if you destroy all the images of your own mother, and your refusal to destroy images of your own mother means that you worship your own mother as a pagan goddess. Please stop practicing idolatry and destroy all those images of your mother.

-CryptoLutheran

The word became flesh..aftwards he returned back.
So I say he is the word of God .
Just as scripture say. But was he God when he was flesh
.or was he flesh.
He shall be called almighty God. A d he now is. That doesn't mean he was so in the flesh. But in his glory it was so and it is so now.
And if so .why do you not obey him and forsake your idolatry.

 

[Marvin Knox]

See ..you quote scripture.
Stick to scripture the in the last breath depart from them .
The word was with God before creation.
Mary Didnt birth the word..
She birthed the flesh that the word became.
She did not birth God nor his word.
Only the flesh Man .

This is quite obvious.
It is only warped by those seeking to justify Mary worship.

Your posts are not completely coherent as anyone can see.

But, be that as it may - the Word was and is God.

The Word became flesh at conception.

Mary gave birth to the flesh which had been the Word before becoming the flesh which she gave birth to.

Therefore Mary gave birth to the Word of God (God) which was now flesh.

Mary was, by virtue of being the mother of the flesh which God had become - the mother of God.

This isn't rocket surgery.

I don't like the title any more than you do. But, come on now, you are able to reason logically aren't you?

I don't like defending this silly title any more than you do.

But, as Paul said to the Corinthians, "You drove me to it!"

 

[ViaCrucis]

The word became flesh..aftwards he returned back.
So I say he is the word of God .
Just as scripture say. But was he God when he was flesh
.or was he flesh.
He shall be called almighty God. A d he now is. That doesn't mean he was so in the flesh. But in his glory it was so and it is so now.

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PeaceByJesus]

In other words, a TRADITION of man.

Sure, if you want to call a non-binding but Scripturally supported practice, if not exactly seen therein a tradition of men. Then there are thinks like "missions month," wedding ceremonies, etc. so what is the problem? Surely a man such as yourself is not ignorant that the rejection of Cath traditions of men is due to these being binding unScriptural doctrines," Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mark 7:7)

We do see convicted souls being called to decide and provision for such being made to dealt them, though we never see NT church pastors conducting the Lord's supper, or being instructed in any epistle to do and dispensing bread as part of their unique duty, but that does not mean they did not, but the real objection is to the Cath miscontruance of the Lord's supper.

So if it is not essential for salvation, why preach it?

To be essential one would need to know of and believe it to be born again. So why preach non-essential truths? Why preach more than the simple gospel message if one does not need to know about how to treat his slaves or how the devil will be bound to be saved?

Surely a man such as yourself is not ignorant that there is a hierarchy of Truths, including in Catholicism, with some being essential gospel Truths while others are helps in growing and acting in grace, or effectiveness as a servant, such as in making one a better teacher, apologist etc.

One does not need to know much to be saved, as "the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18) Thus souls could be saved while yet being ignorant of many things that would be revealed, as the so-called "good thief" was. Therefore believers who presently have eternal life are told to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." (2 Peter 3:18)

Does it? Again, if it is not essential, why preach it at all?

Finally, why preach it if it is not essential for salvation?

Same as above.

These are all traditions of men, and not found in the Bible.

Wrong and a mere bombastic argument by assertion.

The whole idea of the rapture was not a part of Christian thought for 1800 years or so. It wasn't until John Nelson Darby did his own translation of the Bible in 1890 The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby.

And just where did I defend the rapture except as "the resurrection at the end of the Trib,", being the resurrection in which "the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord," (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Corinthians 15:52)

Do you deny this?

Any time that a single person or denomination does a translation of the Bible, no matter how holy he is, there is going to be an agenda, and we can see that Darby had his. Did you know that Darby saw the invention of the telegraph as a sign that the end of the world was approaching; he called the telegraph an invention of Cain and a harbinger of Armageddon?

Just some food for thought.

Irrelevant, as I did not invoke or affirm Darby, while Cath "prophets" have also been wrong.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Scripture is also silent as to a person being required to believe Christ is the one true God to be saved. Does the same logic apply?

I've never argued that one must be theologically orthodox in order to be saved, so your question is misfired here. Have I said that one must believe in Christ's Deity in order to be saved? Have I said that not believing in Christ's Deity means a person is damned? The answer to both is no, I haven't said these things, and I don't believe these things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[stuart lawrence]

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

-CryptoLutheran

I don't see how anyone could be a Christian unless they believed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But they wouldn't have to believe the formula of trinity that emerged hundreds of years after Christ died at calvary

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I hate having to debate Marian doctrines on a forum that holds people that don't believe Jesus is God, nonetheless, I will say this: Mary did, indeed die. That is is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It always has been, and it always will be. At some point AFTER she died, God brought her up to heaven, and restored her spirit and soul to her Body. She is the only person that live only in the age to come.

I do not know you are referring to as denying that Jesus is God, being of the same nature as the Father, while your argument for the death of Mary is also with someone else. However, just where do you see the death of Mary being the official teaching of the Catholic Church?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see how anyone could be a Christian unless they believed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But they wouldn't have to believe the formula of trinity that emerged hundreds of years after Christ died at calvary

I'm asking if they believe in the historic teaching of the Christian Church, that there are three Hypostases of one Substance.

-CryptoLutheran