The Assumption of Mary

[Sarcalogos Deus]

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Word become flesh (John 1:1,14). He has always been ETERNALLY (meaning His deity as the only Begotten Son of God) and has NO beginning.....He always existed. Mary did not give birth to His deity. Please read my post on "When God Became A Man". The full explanation is in that post. Christ didn't "receive" His deity/divintiy...He always had it...and Mary did not give birth to it.

I read the earlier post, but that really said no more than Mary did not create Christ's divinity, and I don't contest that. Do you believe that Mary simply gave birth to the human body Christ would inhabit? Or do you believe that Mary gave birth to Christ with both his human and divine natures intertwined since the moment he was conceived in Mary's womb? If the latter, what possible reason could there be to rejecting the title Mother of God?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

laconicstudent, I can't speak for sheina or for anyone else who disagrees with you here. I will say, however, that I believe we are in agreement because we all reject the belief that Mary is the mother of God. And for me, whatever this or that counsel proclaimed to the contrary is completely irrelevant when it is contrary to the Word of God. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that Mary gave birth to Jesus' divinity. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary called the Mother of God. However, Scripture does tell us that Jesus has always been, because He is, in fact, God. He Himself said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (Revelation 22:13). He has no beginning and no end. John 1:1 says “the Word was God.” John 1:14 says “the Word became flesh.” This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. God has no beginning and no end. He is the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 21:6). Mary is not the mother of God since God has no beginning and no end. She was only the mother of his humanity, not His divinity, because He has always been.

 

[laconicstudent]

The Third Ecumenical Council can call us anathema all you wish. The Bible proves their claim untrue.

The Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit. I realize that some people think God has forsaken his Church, and allows hell to triumph, but most of us Christians believe that Christ is with us, and preserves the fullness of His Church.

 

[laconicstudent]

laconicstudent, I can't speak for sheina or for anyone else who disagrees with you here. I will say, however, that I believe we are in agreement because we all reject the belief that Mary is the mother of God. And for me, whatever this or that counsel proclaimed to the contrary is completely irrelevant when it is contrary to the Word of God. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that Mary gave birth to Jesus' divinity. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary called the Mother of God. However, Scripture does tell us that Jesus has always been, because He is, in fact, God. He Himself said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (Revelation 22:13). He has no beginning and no end. John 1:1 says “the Word was God.” John 1:14 says “the Word became flesh.” This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. God has no beginning and no end. He is the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 21:6). Mary is not the mother of God since God has no beginning and no end. She was only the mother of his humanity, not His divinity.

Yes, you don't know how disturbing I find it that so many people here claim that Mary gave birth to a human shell that was later possessed by the Son.

This is nothing more than a denial of the eternal hypostatic union, something condemned as a sick heresy centuries ago.

 

[laconicstudent]

I read the earlier post, but that really said no more than Mary did not create Christ's divinity, and I don't contest that. Do you believe that Mary simply gave birth to the human body Christ would inhabit? Or do you believe that Mary gave birth to Christ with both his human and divine natures intertwined since the moment he was conceived in Mary's womb? If the latter, what possible reason could there be to rejecting the title Mother of God?

Honestly, Sarcalogos, I think it is the former.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Honestly, Sarcalogos, I think it is the former.

That's what I'm thinking as well, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions about what they believe. Because the former would be a form of monarchianism, which I thought was pretty well gotten rid of 19 centuries ago.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Jesus has always been God, but He did not become a human being until He was conceived in Mary. He became a human being in order to identify with us in our struggles (Hebrews 2:17) and, more importantly, so that He could die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Philippians 2:5-11). He is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that doesn't mean He didn't exist before He was conceived. He has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When He was conceived, He became a human being in addition to already being God (John 1:1, 14). However, I will admit that this is a doctrine I don't fully understand. As a human being with an finite mind, I don't totally comprehend our infinite God and I don't expect I ever will, not while I'm limited by my humanity anyway.

 

[billybtennessee]

Actually the more one studies the teachings regarding Mary, the more concerned they should become. The third council was in Ephesus. This was where the goddess Diana was so worshipped. Many who were accustomed to that were pushing hard for that council to vote as they did.

One could go all the way back to Isis and Osirus. The legend of Nimrod. He was killed, all parts found except the male part. She resurrected him and became with child, That is the meaning of the symbol of the obelisk. Like the one at St, Peters with a cross on the top. A lot of the symbols used of Rome have those pagan legends. They claim to have christianized them, but it is still troubling. Even easter is based more on a pagan day than the proper time to actually observe it, which is by the Jewish calander. Makes one wonder about that lady called Babylon.

 

[Zeek]

The title Mother of G-d has more to do with attempting to designate unbiblical authority to Mary than anything else, so that she can continue to be a powerful focus of adoration and worship.

Of course Mary gave birth to the L-rd who was fully G-d and fully man/human....but it is a mystery how immortal G-d who has existed from all eternity could confine Himself to the seed of life and combine with the egg of Mary...we are not privvy to the biological details...but Mary did not create G-d, she birthed Jesus who was Himself G-d. It goes a step too far when she is provocatively named the Mother of G-d and reveals an agenda to sanction a teaching.

 

[laconicstudent]

That's what I'm thinking as well, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions about what they believe. Because the former would be a form of monarchianism, which I thought was pretty well gotten rid of 19 centuries ago.

Sola scriptura is a gate for the revival of many extinguished heresies. When you don't feel any need to read history, and see how X doctrine was exposed as false and condemned centuries ago, naturally such things will spring up like weeds. And then there are the people who believe that True Christianity(TM) ceased to exist after ~100 A.D. until the Reformation.

 

[Studious One]

Sola Scriptura shuts the door to heresies.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Sola Scriptura shuts the door to heresies.

I give that one a hearty Amen!

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Sola Scriptura shuts the door to heresies.

I wouldn't say thats true. There are many beliefs that were condemned as heresy early on in the church that have been revived under the auspices of Sola Scriptura. Iconoclasm being the most prominent example, and If you believe what i think you believe monarchainism.

 

[laconicstudent]

Sola Scriptura shuts the door to heresies.

Sola Scriptura shuts the door to anything but your own personal opinion, as this forum demonstrates every day.

 

[Studious One]

Sola Scriptura shuts the door to anything but your own personal opinion, as this forum demonstrates every day.

My opinion is that that which is contrary to that which is in the Bible is to be rejected.

 

[MamaZ]

My opinion is that that which is contrary to that which is in the Bible is to be rejected.

I agree

 

[Thekla]

But whose reading of the Bible ?

The reading of the Bible that finds support for the understanding that Christ possessed the man Jesus at baptism ?

The reading of the Bible that finds support for the understanding that the Resurrection was a metaphor (not actual) ?

 

[Studious One]

But whose reading of the Bible ?

The reading of the Bible that finds support for the understanding that Christ possessed the man Jesus at baptism ?

The reading of the Bible that finds support for the understanding that the Resurrection was a metaphor (not actual) ?

I have never seen a Bible that claims Christ possessed the man Jesus at Baptism.

Nor have I found any Bibles out there that claim Christ's resurrection was a metaphor.

 

[Thekla]

I have never seen a Bible that claims Christ possessed the man Jesus at Baptism.

Nor have I found any Bibles out there that claim Christ's resurrection was a metaphor.

The 7 Ecumenical Councils were against the heretical teaching; and the heretical teachings used Scriptural support.

IE, reading the Bible does not guarantee freedom from false teaching.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

My opinion is that that which is contrary to that which is in the Bible is to be rejected.

I also agree. For instance, prayers to saints and/or to Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. All of these beliefs are not biblical and should be outright rejected. There are many other Roman Catholic teachings which should also be rejected. These include the teaching on salvation, assurance of salvation, good works, baptism, prayer, priesthood, and sacraments. We are commanded to test everything against the Scriptures (1 Thessalonians 5:21).