I love the Mother of God!

[JoeT]

And I repeat, I never said that they didn't




Acts 1:14 is the last place where Mary is mentioned - with the exception of Galatians 4:4 which says that the Messiah was "born of a woman".
Within Catholicism and similar organizations Mary appears to be an integral part of their liturgy while seemingly to be raising her at times to a level of a fourth member of the Christian hierarchy. It just seems odd that the epistles would not mention her if she is to be such an important part of Christian living.

Yes, she is important to be able to know what you claim to love. Christ was born of Mary, a woman.

St. John saw Mary in heaven [Cf. Apocalypse 11:19 - 12:2]

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Error

 

[JoeT]

I didn't say that. I said that the epistles don't mention her.

What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Are the stand alone epistles the Gospel? I would suggest you need the whole of the Bible, Old and New Testament.

JoeT

 

[rstrats]

JoeT[/QUOTE]

What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
JoeT

They aren't epistles.

 

[JoeT]

JoeT

They aren't epistles.[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's just throw them out since they tell of Mary's role in your salvation.

JoeT

 

[TedT]

She was NOT the mother of GOD, she was the mother of the incarnation of the Divine Son as human...biiiiiiiig difference.

 

[JoeT]

She was NOT the mother of GOD, she was the mother of the incarnation of the Divine Son as human...biiiiiiiig difference.

Then what was she the Mother of, a ghost, plasma, the flesh blob?

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

Then what was she the Mother of, a ghost, plasma, the flesh blob?

JoeT

Oddly enough, he actually provided the answer to your question in the post you were responding to. He wrote, "She was the mother of the incarnation of the Divine Son as human."

 

[JoeT]

Oddly enough, he actually provided the answer to your question in the post you were responding to. He wrote, "She was the mother of the incarnation of the Divine Son as human."

I think it was said that "She was NOT the mother of GOD". This is to state Jesus is not Divine God.

Instead we hold Jesus Christ is the inseparable union of the Nature of God and with the nature of man without mixing mingling and confusion.

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think it was said that "She was NOT the mother of GOD". This is to state Jesus is not Divine God.

Instead we hold Jesus Christ is the inseparable union of the Nature of God and with the nature of man without mixing mingling and confusion.

JoeT

Apparently you did not like his answer to your question. It might have been more convenient if you would have just said so, unless your response was considered to be a rhetorical question.

 

[rstrats]

JoeT,
re: "Ok, let's just throw them out..."

Not at all since they're part of the historical record.



re: "...since they tell of Mary's role in your salvation."

Actually, the only role they say that she had was to function as the gestation vehicle that the supreme being used to bring the Messiah into the world.
Look, I was merely thinking that it seemed odd to me that the epistles would completely ignore her if she is to be such an important part of Christian life.

 

[prodromos]

Actually, the only role they say that she had was to function as the gestation vehicle that the supreme being used to bring the Messiah into the world

I must remember to wish the woman who gave birth to me a "happy gestation vehicle day" once a year. I'm sure she will be thrilled.

 

[BPPLEE]

They aren't epistles.

Ok, let's just throw them out since they tell of Mary's role in your salvation.

JoeT[/QUOTE]
Please show me where they tell of Mary's role in my salvation?

 

[rstrats]

I must remember to wish the woman who gave birth to me a "happy gestation vehicle day" once a year. I'm sure she will be thrilled.

You could do that but I think a simple "Happy Birthday" would be better received.

 

[BPPLEE]

You could do that but I think a simple "Happy Birthday" would be better received.

But it's not her birthday, it's his

 

[TedT]

I think it was said that "She was NOT the mother of GOD". This is to state Jesus is not Divine God.

No, it states that she did not bring GOD or a god into existence which the mother, creator, of GOD would mean. She was the mother of the man Jesus who happened to be divine. It means she was the vessel that received the pre-existent Divine son into herself to be born as a human in the same way all the rest of the spirits are sown, not created, into this world as taught in Matthew 13:36-39.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, it states that she did not bring GOD or a god into existence which the mother, creator, of GOD would mean. She was the mother of the man Jesus who happened to be divine. It means she was the vessel that received the pre-existent Divine son into herself to be born as a human in the same way all the rest of the spirits are sown, not created, into this world as taught in Matthew 13:36-39.

I think this is an argument that can't be won. Jesus as part of the Trinity has always existed. When he was born he was God incarnate. In that sense Mary is not the Mother of God, he had always existed she was the mother of the man who had a divine nature. But Jesus is God. In that sense she is the Mother of God. So this just seems like splitting hairs.

 

[prodromos]

No, it states that she did not bring GOD or a god into existence which the mother, creator, of GOD would mean. She was the mother of the man Jesus who happened to be divine. It means she was the vessel that received the pre-existent Divine son into herself to be born as a human in the same way all the rest of the spirits are sown, not created, into this world as taught in Matthew 13:36-39.

"Mother" does not mean "creator". No mother "creates" her child. Every human in existence was created by God.

 

[TedT]

"Mother" does not mean "creator". No mother "creates" her child. Every human in existence was created by God.

While I agree, I argue against this use because other religions do in fact claim their god was created by its mother...
AND
for those who accept that humans are created by GOD on earth in the womb, then this implies that GOD creates evil as the people HE creates in the womb are sinners as proven by their being subject to suffering and death which are the wages of sin. Creating them with inherited sin is no less a creation of evil people than creating them evil by fiat.

This doctrine of being created evil in the womb also contradicts the clear word of GOD about our creation: Matthew 13:36-39 which is the explanation of the parable so therefore must be without any further metaphor or hyperbole.

 

[JoeT]

No, it states that she did not bring GOD or a god into existence which the mother, creator, of GOD would mean. She was the mother of the man Jesus who happened to be divine. It means she was the vessel that received the pre-existent Divine son into herself to be born as a human in the same way all the rest of the spirits are sown, not created, into this world as taught in Matthew 13:36-39.

Mary bore the Person we call Jesus Christ, not a nature. Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, who is a Person that is God incarnate [John 1:1, 14], a unique and inseparable union of the natures of a whole and complete God and and a whole and complete man without mixing, mingling or confusion [John 1:14].

The vessel we call the Ark of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

If Mary didn't bear God, then when did this union between God and man occur? If Mary didn't bare the Second Person of the Trinity then she and only bore man, then when does Jesus become God? If that occurs at conception, wouldn't Mary have born God as well as man - how is the inseparable separated? Could it be you believe Mary bore the flesh of a man and God possessed it like a ghost possesses a man? Maybe Jesus wasn't God at birth, but a few years later when God possessed the man this thing became your god?

Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Thus, Mary is the Mother of God.

This does not propose that Mary originated God.

What does the parable of the cockle and the wheat have to do with this discussion?

JoeT