Mary mother of God

[Wharton]

There is nothing in the Scriptures about the eternal now. And nowhere in Scripture is the Lord's Supper called a sacrifice. Jesus asked us to remember Him by sharing the bread and wine as a reminder of His suffering body and shed blood on the cross until He comes again. So yes, we need to be sharing the Lord's Supper repeatedly.

So I would assume that your god is not timeless/eternal? That he is bound by time?

God is everywhere and in every 'time." It's called the eternal now.

As far as the Lord's Supper, you are confused. First, it was not Passover. The lambs were not yet slain so there is no lamb. Second, they were reclining, not standing as required for Passover. So no Passover.

That leaves one thing. A Jewish Todah which is performed to thank God for saving someone from danger. You gather with friends and EAT the sacrifice. Not a symbol or emblem. But the actual sacrifice.

Yep, Jesus was leading a Jewish Todah which we call the Last Supper. And it is a sacrifice-see below,

Thank offering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Todah)
Jump to: navigation, search
The thank offering (Hebrew: תֹּודָה, pronounced Todah) or sacrifice of thanksgiving (Hebrew zevakh hatodah זֶבַח הַתֹּודָה ) was an optional offering under the Law of Moses.[1] This is also termed the "thanksgiving offering."[2]

So the Catholic Mass is Jewish at its roots.

Liturgy of the Word as done in the synagogue, even by Jesus.

Liturgy of the Eucharist/Thanksgiving/Todah as done by Jesus at the Last Supper thanking him for our salvation.

 

[Wharton]

Are you saying that only elders can interpret the Scriptures? I hope not because we are all responsible to read and study the word of God. Notice that the Berean Jews were not elders. They were simply Christians, and they were considered noble because they examined the Scriptures daily to see if what the apostle Paul said was true. This blows your idea out of the water that only the elders/or bishops can interpret the Scriptures.

They were using the scriptures to prove that what Paul said was true. They do not get to preach their own interpretation of scripture. That's Paul's job not theirs.

 

[Wharton]

want to hear something that will really blow your mind...Catholics believe the Bible came from the traditions of men. Those men were the early Christians.

Correct. Tradition assembled the bible.

 

[kjv4me2you]

Where exactly are you seeing Mary called "the Mother of God?" My emphasis is on what seems to me to be your own addition of the word "the" in your reference to the phrase "Mother of God," as in the Hail Mary prayer "...Holy Mary, Mother of God..."

Do you see somewhere that Catholics actually tend toward adding that article "the" in reference to Mary? I've been wracking my brain trying to remember...and it's been a long time for me, since I haven't considered myself Catholic for many years, but I just don't recall when I was attending Catholic school as a child that Mary was being referred to as "the" Mother of God, as in necessitating existing prior to God.

Whether or not a person believes in the Trinity, and/or Jesus being Divine, the word "of" still also indicates sourced from, caused by, sent from, etc. Of | Define Of at Dictionary.com

So...the way I see it, if it is inaccurate and wrong to say Mary is the "Mother of God," I think one would have to take a position that there is some other being, entity, or God capable of creating or sending Mary to earth.

Why do Catholics call Mary "the Mother of God?" If Mary were really God's mother then her mother would be the "Grandmother of God."

RCC Answer:
We Catholics call Mary the "Mother of God" because that's exactly what she is. To understand why this is true let's back up a step and consider who and what her son, Jesus Christ, is.

What do Roman Catholics call Mary? Since the Son born to Mary is a single Person (and that Person is God) with two natures, Mary can rightly be called the Mother of God.

The RCC has a lot of ways to look at their doctrine of Mary Mother of God but of course no such name exists in scripture for her.

The RCC says if you don't get it this way try another way we have for you.

RCC says here's another way to look at it. A woman can't be the mother merely of a nature. She can only be the mother of a person who possesses a nature. When a child is conceived he is a person, not just a nature.

I say; Mary is not the mother of the spirit or soul of Jesus nor the mother of any soul or spirits. The Holy Scripture says (Heb 12:9 KJV) Furthermore we have had fathers ( and mothers ) of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
God is spirit with a soul what God is not is mortal flesh never was and never will be mortal flesh.

The RCC states "Mary is the mother not of Jesus' human nature but of Jesus the God-Man, a divine Person, she is rightly called the Mother of God."

Say what?

RCC doctrine also declares that Mary is THE spouse of THE Holy Spirit.

(Acts 1:14 KJV) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary THE mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

The RCC declares if Mary is THE mother of Jesus and Jesus is God then Mary is the mother of God.

I personally do not believe because the apostles state Mary is the mother of Jesus; therefore she is THE MOTHER OF GOD.

(Acts 1:14 KJV) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with Jesus' brethren.

Acts 1:14 is the last mention of Mary in scripture; so from AD 33 unto 96 AD and that's 63 years with no apostle writing about Mary the mother of Jesus because (John 16:13 KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
(John 16:14 KJV) He shall glorify Yehoshua-Jesus: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.

The spirit of truth glorifies Jesus not Mary. If Mary was the " Mother of God" then God's Book of Holy scripture would glorify her and not the RCC doctrines.

willyah

 

[katiemygirl]

in what way do you mean, "They came from Jesus", because there is Tradition that predates Jesus. We do not believe Jesus threw out the old testament.
We would say Divine Tradition comes from God, either through his written words in the Bible or through the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

Jesus spoke very negatively about traditions of men. The only traditions Jesus talked about were those being bound on the Jewish people by the Pharisees and priests, and He abhorred them. God laid everything out in the OT that He required of His people, but the priests, Pharisees and other leaders started coming up with rules of their own that God never sanctioned. Jesus also constantly quoted the Scriptures. He kept the Law perfectly. Jesus did not throw out the OT, but the ordinances that applied under the Law, do not apply to us. I'm sure you would agree with that. Jesus said He came not to destroy, but to fulfill (or expand) the Law, and He did. His sermon on the mount is evidence of that. I agree with you that Jesus taught orally. His apostles taught both orally and later in writing. Eventually, all of Jesus' and the apostles' teaching were recorded in 27 different books. They were completed and copied in the first century and were being circulated among the churches. The problem I see with the RCC is their doctrine goes beyond anything Jesus ever said or His apostles ever wrote.

 

[kjv4me2you]

I'm back...and I hope kjv4me2you finds this...because this thread has gotten so long I can't find previous posts.


First off, that expression, Mother of God…predates the Bible. What do I mean when I say this…I mean…Christianity started with Jesus, not with a Bible.

So, Although, one may turn only to the Bible to understand Christianity, do not expect the Catholic (and others) to turn only to the Bible to try to understand Christianity.


Mary was the mother of Jesus, Jesus is God…therefore Mary is the Mother of God…the logic seems simple to me
….until one thinks about what does it mean to be A Mother? Sure, I can easily point to all that “frou frou stuff” that means A mother, that has LOVE to the nth degree, because who doesn’t see that that kinda Love means to be patient and kind and etc. Mary had just that kinda love with Jesus. Everytime she got to kiss his boo-boo, or catch him in a hug as he ran across a field is a way I wish I could have done to worship God.

But lets talk the nitty gritty! What does it mean biologically to be a mother. It means giving your DNA to your baby. And we believe Mary gave her DNA to Jesus because we don’t believe he magically poofed into her womb. But is who you are simply DNA? No. You are also a soul. So Jesus is also more than just the DNA that Mary contributed. His soul is Divine. So saying Mother of God does not mean Mary made God. Mary’s soul is not divine.

(1 John 4:8 KJV) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
(1 John 4:9 KJV) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

The love of God was revealed to us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live ( eternal life ) through God's resurrected Hebrew Son Jesus of Nazareth the Second man. (Acts 22:8 KJV) And I answered, Who art thou, Sir? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecuteth.

The RCC teaches that Mary did not die. They believe that Jesus died therefore they believe God died but they believe Mary did not die. Both these doctrines are false because they contradict the word of God.

WIKIPEDIA

The point of her bodily death has not been infallibly defined, and many believe that she did not die at all, but was assumed directly into Heaven. The dogmatic definition within the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus which, according to Roman Catholic dogma, infallibly proclaims the doctrine of the Assumption leaves open the question whether, in connection with her departure, Mary underwent bodily death; that is, it does not dogmatically define the point one way or the other, as shown by the words "having completed the course of her earthly life".

Scripture defines IT IS APPOINTED UNTO ALL MEN ONCE TO DIE AND NOT MEN ARE UNDECIDED IF MARY DIED.
(Heb 9:27 KJV) And as it is appointed unto men ( and woman) once to die, but after this the judgment:

No God can call Himself eternal God and have 3 days dead in a grave on His resume and truthfully call Himself the eternal God.
Deu 33:27 KJV) The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.
Deu 33:27 is mentioned ONE time in all of scripture because there is only one YHWH-YaH eternal. If Mary did not die and God died, then Mary would trump YHWH-YaH the ETERNAL GOD.


Mary's soul was not sinless nor was she assumed ( taken bodily and soul ) into heaven without dying. Mary was mortal and as a mortal she died once. Mary claimed she received mercy and only a sinner asks for mercy. Mary needed mercy as a sinner like all men and woman .

The RCC claims Mary was sinless while scripture says (Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
According to the RCC doctrine of Mary being sinless as a mortal would contradict that all men ( and woman) come short of the glory of God

willyah

 

[kjv4me2you]

want to hear something that will really blow your mind...Catholics believe the Bible came from the traditions of men. Those men were the early Christians.

YHWH-YaH gave His BOOK to His Firstborn Son the nation Israel-( Exo 4:22) and the First born Son the Israel of God-( Gal 6:16) gave it to the Gentiles-( Acts 28:28 ).

ISRAEL THE FIRST BORN SON OF YHWH-YAH= (Exo 4:22 KJV) And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith YHWH-YaH, Israel is my Son, even my firstborn:

Yehoshua-JESUS was the Last Adam who was resurrected by YHWH-YaH as the Second man.

LAST ADAM=(1 Cor 15:45 KJV) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

SECOMD MAN=(1 Cor 15:47 KJV) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is supreme man from heaven.

THE ISRAEL OF GOD=(Gal 6:16 KJV) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

THE GENTILES=(Acts 28:28 KJV AD 64 ) Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

willyah

 

[kjv4me2you]

So I would assume that your god is not timeless/eternal? That he is bound by time?

God is everywhere and in every 'time." It's called the eternal now.

As far as the Lord's Supper, you are confused. First, it was not Passover. The lambs were not yet slain so there is no lamb. Second, they were reclining, not standing as required for Passover. So no Passover.

That leaves one thing. A Jewish Todah which is performed to thank God for saving someone from danger. You gather with friends and EAT the sacrifice. Not a symbol or emblem. But the actual sacrifice.

Yep, Jesus was leading a Jewish Todah which we call the Last Supper. And it is a sacrifice-see below,

Thank offering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Todah)
Jump to: navigation, search
The thank offering (Hebrew: תֹּודָה, pronounced Todah) or sacrifice of thanksgiving (Hebrew zevakh hatodah זֶבַח הַתֹּודָה ) was an optional offering under the Law of Moses.[1] This is also termed the "thanksgiving offering."[2]

So the Catholic Mass is Jewish at its roots.

Liturgy of the Word as done in the synagogue, even by Jesus.

Liturgy of the Eucharist/Thanksgiving/Todah as done by Jesus at the Last Supper thanking him for our salvation.

Mary the mother of Jesus never did a rcc eucharist mass. No one did a rcc eucharist mass in scripture. The word eucharist means thanks. It is not a name. It does not mean Mary or Jesus or YHWH-YaH.
Eucharist is not a manufactured pressed out wafer that becomes Jesus or God because a priest says so.

willyah

willyah

 

[Wharton]

Mary the mother of Jesus never did a rcc eucharist mass. No one did a rcc eucharist mass in scripture. The word eucharist means thanks. It is not a name. It does not mean Mary or Jesus or YHWH-YaH.
Eucharist is not a manufactured pressed out wafer that becomes Jesus or God because a priest says so.

willyah

willyah

And you don't have a clue either.

 

[kepha31]

I am agreeing with you.

I like churches that have a sign out front that says Catholic Church. The ones that state Roman Catholic Church are just plain wrong. As a Catholic, you can worship validly and licitly in any Catholic rite church.

Amen! The term "Roman" Catholic was first used as an insult from the Anglicans in the 16th century, and it stuck. It only appears twice in the Catechism. The Pope rarely uses the term, unless she is addressing his diocese in Rome, where he functions as a bishop. I don't refer to myself as a "Roman Catholic". Just "Catholic". But really, "Roman", it's not a big deal.

 

[chlotilde]

I say; Mary is not the mother of the spirit or soul of Jesus nor the mother of any soul or spirits.

Exactly!
You either didn't understand what I was saying, or you are building a strawman in your own mind (and let me just add, you are building strawmen about what you think the Church teaches).

Do you want to know WHY the Church has this as Doctrine (Do you even know what Doctrine means to the Church? Doctrine is meant to address some item of Faith.)
So there was a Bishop named Nestorius going around preaching that Jesus became Divine after he left the womb. And the Church said, No, that is not what we believe...this "Mary, Mother of God" was meant to show we believed Jesus was God in the womb, hence the need to stress "of God". That is why we have it.

I'm sure you must have beliefs about Jesus' nature. You might not call it Doctrine, but I am sure you would argue it as such.

edit here to add..I used the past tense up there, just want to clarify that we still do believe Jesus was God inside the womb.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I found it! Thats the crux of your debate here:

RCC says here's another way to look at it. A woman can't be the mother merely of a nature. She can only be the mother of a person who possesses a nature. When a child is conceived he is a person, not just a nature
​

As long as you continue to separate Christ's nature: one human the other God you will not understand who Jesus is in the eyes of a trinitarian. We are all, Jesus included, are each One person. We are each defined by "our natures." These natures are not just that of the flesh. My nature is that of my ancestors, my roots, and my family. A Christian's nature is that of the Spirit of Christ. Jesus' nature is that of His Father.

You cannot separate me from my family, a Christian from Christ, and Jesus from His Father. There is no separation.

These natures make up who we are as One person.

So, I (both my family in my blood and that of me) have a Mother. You, katiemygirl, have the spirit of Christ (which is your new born again nature) and that of your flesh. That is who you are. You too have a mother (in this example). Jesus has the Spirit of His Father and He is that of flesh. He too has a Mother.

Sara is the Mother of Carlita (family/me), Jane is the mother of Katiemygirl (Spirit of Christ and you), Mary is the Mother of Jesus (His Father and Jesus Himself).

It is not complex. It just means one person has two natures and whoever the parent is of that person is a parent of that One person who, himself, has two natures.

If you told Jesus now that His Father is not a part Him...separating natures....that would be an insult to Jesus.

Mary is the Mother of "God the Son" NOT "God the Father".

Why is this hard to understand?

Edit: Wait, if Jesus had to separate natures, He would not be perfect. He would just be a regular person who has a perfect relationship with His Father.

Wait...according to scripture (depending on who interprets it of course), it says Jesus is not just a mere human. He IS God in the flesh. (His nature is not human, it is of His Father--hence why He says His Father and He are One).

Jesus--not the mere human...Jesus the Son of God (the one with His Father's Nature) has a Mother, Mary. This non-mere human, perfect, with His Father's nature embedded in His, has a Mother, Mary. Mary is the Mother of this perfect, non-mere human being who is the Father of in the flesh. Therefore, she is the Mother of God.

God the Father does not have a Mother. God the Son does. (Both are God)

Why do Catholics call Mary "the Mother of God?" If Mary were really God's mother then her mother would be the "Grandmother of God."

RCC Answer:
We Catholics call Mary the "Mother of God" because that's exactly what she is. To understand why this is true let's back up a step and consider who and what her son, Jesus Christ, is.

What do Roman Catholics call Mary? Since the Son born to Mary is a single Person (and that Person is God) with two natures, Mary can rightly be called the Mother of God.

The RCC has a lot of ways to look at their doctrine of Mary Mother of God but of course no such name exists in scripture for her.

The RCC says if you don't get it this way try another way we have for you.

RCC says here's another way to look at it. A woman can't be the mother merely of a nature. She can only be the mother of a person who possesses a nature. When a child is conceived he is a person, not just a nature.

I say; Mary is not the mother of the spirit or soul of Jesus nor the mother of any soul or spirits. The Holy Scripture says (Heb 12:9 KJV) Furthermore we have had fathers ( and mothers ) of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
God is spirit with a soul what God is not is mortal flesh never was and never will be mortal flesh.

The RCC states "Mary is the mother not of Jesus' human nature but of Jesus the God-Man, a divine Person, she is rightly called the Mother of God."

Say what?

RCC doctrine also declares that Mary is THE spouse of THE Holy Spirit.

(Acts 1:14 KJV) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary THE mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

The RCC declares if Mary is THE mother of Jesus and Jesus is God then Mary is the mother of God.

I personally do not believe because the apostles state Mary is the mother of Jesus; therefore she is THE MOTHER OF GOD.

(Acts 1:14 KJV) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with Jesus' brethren.

Acts 1:14 is the last mention of Mary in scripture; so from AD 33 unto 96 AD and that's 63 years with no apostle writing about Mary the mother of Jesus because (John 16:13 KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
(John 16:14 KJV) He shall glorify Yehoshua-Jesus: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.

The spirit of truth glorifies Jesus not Mary. If Mary was the " Mother of God" then God's Book of Holy scripture would glorify her and not the RCC doctrines.

willyah

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wow. That puts a spin on things. Nice tid bit.

Amen! The term "Roman" Catholic was first used as an insult from the Anglicans in the 16th century, and it stuck. It only appears twice in the Catechism. The Pope rarely uses the term, unless she is addressing his diocese in Rome, where he functions as a bishop. I don't refer to myself as a "Roman Catholic". Just "Catholic". But really, "Roman", it's not a big deal.

 

[chlotilde]

Jesus spoke very negatively about traditions of men. The only traditions Jesus talked about were those being bound on the Jewish people by the Pharisees and priests, and He abhorred them. God laid everything out in the OT that He required of His people, but the priests, Pharisees and other leaders started coming up with rules of their own that God never sanctioned. Jesus also constantly quoted the Scriptures. He kept the Law perfectly. Jesus did not throw out the OT, but the ordinances that applied under the Law, do not apply to us. I'm sure you would agree with that. Jesus said He came not to destroy, but to fulfill (or expand) the Law, and He did. His sermon on the mount is evidence of that. I agree with you that Jesus taught orally. His apostles taught both orally and later in writing. Eventually, all of Jesus' and the apostles' teaching were recorded in 27 different books. They were completed and copied in the first century and were being circulated among the churches. The problem I see with the RCC is their doctrine goes beyond anything Jesus ever said or His apostles ever wrote.

Okay, I have to admit here, you are using vocabulary that I don't quite understand what it means to you . I don't know what "ordinances that applied under the Law" means.
But what I am hearing is that you believe we only need 27 books (You do know that Paul wrote more letters than the 13 in the Bible, yes? They are not in your Bible, but they are in the Bibles of some other Christians...don't ask me specifics,lol, because I just told you all I know about them).
sorry about that tangent...so, if we only need those 27 that means, we don't need the OT...that's what I mean when I say "throw out the OT".

 

[Wharton]

Jesus spoke very negatively about traditions of men. The only traditions Jesus talked about were those being bound on the Jewish people by the Pharisees and priests, and He abhorred them. God laid everything out in the OT that He required of His people, but the priests, Pharisees and other leaders started coming up with rules of their own that God never sanctioned. Jesus also constantly quoted the Scriptures. He kept the Law perfectly. Jesus did not throw out the OT, but the ordinances that applied under the Law, do not apply to us. I'm sure you would agree with that. Jesus said He came not to destroy, but to fulfill (or expand) the Law, and He did. His sermon on the mount is evidence of that. I agree with you that Jesus taught orally. His apostles taught both orally and later in writing. Eventually, all of Jesus' and the apostles' teaching were recorded in 27 different books. They were completed and copied in the first century and were being circulated among the churches. The problem I see with the RCC is their doctrine goes beyond anything Jesus ever said or His apostles ever wrote.

Jesus also stated that the Scribes and the Pharisees sit on the Chair of Moses and to do what they tell you but not to do as they do. So Jesus did not abhor traditions.

To fulfill the Law means to properly interpret it. To destroy the Law means to improperly interpret it.

 

[katiemygirl]

Did not Paul recommend celibacy first? So where are you going with this?

You've been told how many times that celibacy is a discipline in the Roman rite. Do you comprehend what has been posted on this matter by more than one poster or are you too filled with hatred to see the truth? If you want a married priest then find an eastern rite church that is in communion with the pope or a Roman rite local church that has accepted former married Lutheran and Anglican priests into the fold. That should make you happy and solve your married priest problem.

Yes, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have married priests.

Since you can choose the rite you wish to worship under and where you worship in the Catholic Church, your problem no longer exists.

Filled with hatred? You may want to reflect on your own post and those of a couple other catholic people on this forum. Remember when you point your finger at someone else, three fingers are pointing back at you.

Let me ask you this. If a person believes homosexuality is wrong, does this mean that person hates homosexuals? If a person doesn't like President Obama, does that make him a racist, a hater of all black people? How about this? Do you like what you consider to be false teaching? How do you feel about false doctrine? You okay with that?

Disagreeing with the teachings of others is not hatred.

Yes Paul said it was better if one could give all of their time to God, but he also recognized the needs of men when he said it is better to marry than burn with lust. I don'tknow of not one married priest in the RCC anywhere.

The whole concept of a middle priesthood is wrong, and forbidding priests to marry has caused nothing but disgrace for the RCC. I've already pointed out to you that one of the qualifications for elders is that they be married, but you twisted that to mean something completely different.

1 Timothy 3:12. “A bishop (elder) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach

 

[katiemygirl]

Jesus also stated that the Scribes and the Pharisees sit on the Chair of Moses and to do what they tell you but not to do as they do. So Jesus did not abhor traditions.

To fulfill the Law means to properly interpret it. To destroy the Law means to improperly interpret it.

Please quote Scripture to support your statements above..

 

[katiemygirl]

Okay, I have to admit here, you are using vocabulary that I don't quite understand what it means to you . I don't know what "ordinances that applied under the Law" means.

By ordinances I mean things like sacrificing animals on the altar, purification rites, etc. Those ordinances were nailed to the cross. We are not required to keep the Law of Moses.

But what I am hearing is that you believe we only need 27 books (You do know that Paul wrote more letters than the 13 in the Bible, yes? They are not in your Bible, but they are in the Bibles of some other Christians...don't ask me specifics,lol, because I just told you all I know about them).
sorry about that tangent...so, if we only need those 27 that means, we don't need the OT...that's what I mean when I say "throw out the OT".

You're hearing wrong. We need all of God's word, but we are not bound by the Law of Moses. We are bound by the Law of Christ. As for Paul's letters, I know nothing about any others which are contained in other Bibles. If there are, they were never accepted as authentic by the RCC or main stream Christianity.

 

[kepha31]

Me:

This proves you ignore my posts. You came up with the same LIE inpost #79 here.Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are too proud to take correction. I answered your LIEin post #80 here, and here you are repeating the same LIE. This is habitual with you.

katiemygirl:

"You're calling me a liar? Sorry, but I can no longer respond to you.

I always refer to the lie, not to the person.

I’ll compare statements to show what I mean.

1)“You are an idiot”
2) “That statement is idiotic”

1 is an attack on the person, known by its Latin “ad hominum” which could be the only Latin word I know.
2 is an attack on the statement, not the person, a forum norm.

It’s not always easy to tell 1 from 2. I apologize for offending you. You are not a liar, but you post lies. The sad thing is, no amount of scripture, 2000 years of consistent, authoritive teaching or eloquence, or historical facts can sway your prejudice. You believe falsehoods about Catholicism even after you have been proven false. You cannot be taught or corrected.

 

[kepha31]

Exactly!
You either didn't understand what I was saying, or you are building a strawman in your own mind (and let me just add, you are building strawmen about what you think the Church teaches).

Do you want to know WHY the Church has this as Doctrine (Do you even know what Doctrine means to the Church? Doctrine is meant to address some item of Faith.)
So there was a Bishop named Nestorius going around preaching that Jesus became Divine after he left the womb. And the Church said, No, that is not what we believe...this "Mary, Mother of God" was meant to show we believed Jesus was God in the womb, hence the need to stress "of God". That is why we have it.

I'm sure you must have beliefs about Jesus' nature. You might not call it Doctrine, but I am sure you would argue it as such.

edit here to add..I used the past tense up there, just want to clarify that we still do believe Jesus was God inside the womb.

Funny how Nestorius didn't like the term "Theotokos" either. It means "Mother of God" but I think the English is a problematic translation. "God bearer" is more accurate. Anti-Catholics refuse to acknowledge that the term came about as a response to a serious Christological heresy, a defense of the Incarnation. The response was based on what was always believed about Mary. The Church didn't invent something new. Either Mary had God in her womb or she didn't. Objectors to the term "Mother of God" want it both ways, because they read some anti-Catholic literature that claims we mean Mother of the Father. I'm serious. I've seen this level of stupidity on "Bible-Christian" hate sites.

Logical Syllogism:
Jesus is God -----the major premise
Mary is His mother. ---the minor premise
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God. ---the conclusion inferred from the premises.

The only way out is to give lip service to what the Incarnation really means.