Mary.

[ServingHim]

Is Mary the "mother of God"?

do YOU believe that Mary IS the Mother of God?

[ServingHim]

ServingHim...some really great posts here...I have been reading and learning so much about 'Catholicism', including the links you gave several days ago which proved to be 'wheels within wheels', as they kept linking to other information...all very interesting but it has been an education for me to follow this thread and weigh up the various pros and cons that have been thrown around...

So far as I have been weighing things and comparing various teachings I can see some interesting ideas that the Catholic Church teaches that have a solid foundation in Church History and the writings of some revered men of G-d..such as the Assumption of Mary...Others have tip-toed into the realms of biblical fantasy as far as I can tell and often have a righteous and a moral story but are far removed from either documented historical or biblical evidence and yet they become treasured doctrine and defended dogma....much like some of the content of the various Rabbinical writings..and to which I might add the 'Apocrypha.

I certainly had no idea that according to Catholic doctrine my relationship with the L-rd Jesus Christ is counted as worthless because I am outside the Catholic fold and in so many words...a pagan or heretic. Whereas I might find much Catholic doctrine baffling or unbiblical I do not dare say that any who have a saving faith in the L-rd Jesus are not really Christians and I embrace them as my fellow Believers...I just believe they are rather misled about certain issues.

Anyway this thread which is ostensibly about Mary continues to be a real eye-opener to me and I am glad you have stuck around even when some heavier expressions of discontent get thrown your way. Be blessed. :hug:

God bless you Botz :il: :hug:

[Guest shiloh357]

Is Mary the "mother of God"?

do YOU believe that Mary IS the Mother of God?

[Guest LadyC]

goodness, i had to take notes just to look up many of your references. this will be out of order, and won't address everything you said because i think the ones i do cover will demonstrate the obvious.

first let's get to your question of the body of believers... believing what, exactly. believing that Christ is God incarnate, that He is the Son of God, made manifest in the flesh through the birth of a virgin, who was perfect and without blemish, and who sacrificed Himself for the sins of all, and who defeated death through ressurection.

oh, and about how God speaks to us. He speaks to us in more ways than you mentioned, and you're missing out on a tremendous blessing if you've never listened to Him personally. God has a personal relationship with each of us. He speaks to us also through our conscience, through our spirit, and when necessary, He even speaks to us AUDIBLY... as in you can actually hear His voice as if He were sitting right next to you, and He is. have you ever heard the audible voice of God? i have. it's an amazingly humbling experience that just totally overwhelms you with awe.

ok, now.... on to the scriptural references.

the kingdom of heaven.

in first samuel, if you will study the passage and not a solitary verse, is discussing the kingdom of heaven that Christ will set up on earth. the kingdom of heaven will be established on earth after armeggedon. in samuel, when it discusses the inheritance of the thrown, it is establishing the royal bloodline through which Christ will be born. this is the reason that one of the gospels (was it luke or matthew? i get the two accounts of his genealogy confused) traces Christ's genealogy through joseph, or was it mary, (the two accounts follow the paternal and the maternal lineage, and as mary was married to joseph, Christ was considered to be the lineage of joseph as well) to show that He is indeed a descendant of the royal bloodline, which is a fulfilment of scripture regarding the Savior's birth.

psalms 89 demonstrates the continuance of this bloodline, as does the passage in 1 chronicles. when david said "i will establish his throne forever" he was speaking on a larger scale than himself personally. "i will be his father and he will be my son... i will set him over my house and kingdom forever... his thrown will be established forever". that thrown is not talking about the royal throne in an the heavenly kingdom on earth, and the house and kingdom david sets Him over is talking about the earthly kingdom of men, not of heaven. by saying he would be "his father and he would be my son", he is referring to the ancestry through which Christ would be born.

interesting that you referenced matt 23 2:4, which says that we should all obey everything the scribes and pharissees command of their church... let's read the passage in context:

Matthew 23

1

[ServingHim]

The fact is that Jesus pre-existed Mary. Jesus was God before He was born. Therefore Mary was not His mother in the absolute sense. She was not the mother of God. Mary was mother only to Jesus humanity.

Jesus in the FLESH did NOT exist before Mary..

do you deny that Jesus IS GOD?

Mary IS the Mother of JESUS...therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. Jesus IS GOD! :il:

[Guest shiloh357]

The fact is that Jesus pre-existed Mary.  Jesus was God before He was  born.  Therefore Mary was not His mother in the absolute sense.  She was not the mother of God.  Mary was mother only to Jesus humanity.

Jesus in the FLESH did NOT exist before Mary..

do you deny that Jesus IS GOD?

Mary IS the Mother of JESUS...therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. Jesus IS GOD! :il:

Of course I do not deny that Jesus is God. However Jesus is both God and Man. Mary was mother only to Jesus' physical body. Jesus as God preexisted Mary, and she did not give birth to Him as God. "God" is made up of three persons, not just Jesus. Mary is not mother to the Father or the Holy Spirit, therefore she is not the "mother of God." You need to apply scripture and common sense instead of believing heresies, and worshipping idols.

[ServingHim]

furthermore, if i understand correctly, the RCC believes peter was the first pope, and also believes the pope to be infallible. this is so incorrect. peter was very fallible. in fact, he was short tempered, bold, brazen, and was not immune to being corrected by Christ, who is the Word of God incarnate. and when push came to shove, Jesus told peter that he would betray Him, and peter did exactly that, three times before the cock crowed.

You're confusing mpeccability with infallibility. Impeccability is an attribute not claimed by the pope, and few would deny that there have been "bad" popes - Saint Peter himself denied Jesus three times after being essentially appointed Pope. Impeccability is the absence of sin. Christianity believes this to be an attribute of God (logically God cannot sin, it would mean that he would act against his own will) and therefore also an attribute of Christ. Impeccability is NOT applied to, nor has the church ever taught, regarding the pope...the pope, like Peter, is a sinner just like everyone else.

The Catholic Church

[Guest LadyC]

Jesus is God the Son.... the other parts of the trinity are God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. Jesus existed as part of the triune before the creation of the earth, as did God the Father, as did God the Holy Ghost. this is found in the book of genesis.

shiloh is correct. mary is the mother of Jesus Christ the MAN, not the mother of the Jesus Christ, God.

she is not the mother of God.

servinghim, i know you mean well, and i admire your tenacity in defending your religion. but the fact remains that the RCC doctrine frequently ignores, denies, or misinterperates (taking scripture out of context) the truth that others here, particularly those who are not strong in their faith, need to hear.

surely you understand that it would be a grave disservice to those members if we did not point out the errancy of the RCC doctrine by giving context. please don't take it as a personal attack, because i don't believe anyone here intends it in that manner. it's meant simply as a defense of Biblical Truth.

[Guest LadyC]

impeccable, infallible, makes no difference. they both mean without error, and such claims regarding the church, the doctrine, or the pope are wrong.

[ServingHim]

impeccable, infallible, makes no difference. they both mean without error, and such claims regarding the church, the doctrine, or the pope are wrong.

sorry, ladyc, but they DO mean 2 different things...but nonetheless, since you think they don't mean any different, WHY would you ever ever ever listen to what ANY CHURCH teaches? For ALL Churches have MEN in the pulpit...why bother going to church at all? WHY do you believe that there is a TRINITY? 'Mere Men' developed this 'doctrine' many many years ago...for if you say that you can by yourself 'deduce' that one by 'scripture alone', then you're gonna have to prove it to me by 'scripture alone' and then tell me HOW you can call it the 'Trinity' and then tell me exactly what Trinity means...

I think that you just don't WANT to see that the church POSSIBLY could be led by Christ Himself THROUGH a 'shepherd' (i.e. a MAN). He sure chose Paul, didn't He to teach us?! Why not others throughout history? Again, WHICH 'version' of truth is correct on BAPTISM, EUCHARIST, CONFESSING, et al. For AGAIN, the HOLY SPIRIT cannot be leading all the millions and millions of Christians into 'differing' truths on these very things. Just admit it...you're not on solid ground in your defense of the 'invisible' church thing. Christ's Church is JUST as VISIBLE as HE HIMSELF became FLESH and VISIBLE! :il: