-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
G
Guest
Guest
- Thread starter
- #142
One interesting thing about the history of the doctrine of the "Virgin Birth" is that Thomas Aquinas opposed the idea that Mary was born sinless. You can read Aquinas' thoughts, which oppose modern Catholic dogma, in his Shorter Summa.
During any discussion of the Virgin Birth I think it is important to remember that Mary is only the mother of Christ's human nature, not His divine. Nestorious, of all people, who was later condemned for teaching that Christ was two persons in one body (although no definition was supplied by his accusers for the terms 'person' or 'nature' which is strange in such a trial), pointed this out in order to oppose those who worshipped Mary in his day under the belief that Mary was a goddess who begot Christ's divinity. In other words, he opposed Mary being called "the Mother of God" for the reason that one might easily misunderstand this to mean that Christ gets His divinity from Mary. Such an idea would also necessarily imply that Mary was divine too. Seems Nestorious was interested in precise definition, perhaps his controversy over the Incarnation was a subtle challenge to the church to define key terms such as: person, essence, and so on? After all, Nestorious held that Christ was fully God and fully man and hypostatically united, but he chose to call those predicates "one body / two natures". This is all very interesting. What did Christ lack in order for him not to be considered a human person, if in fact he was fully human? Can one be fully human and not be a human person? If one is not a human person, then does this not imply that one is less than fully human? One must certainly have a clear definition for person in such a controversy. Can anyone here give a definition? Hey, let's get back to Mary and the Virgin Birth!
Many Hispanics today, as most Catholics world wide, worship Mary, and she has even been called the co-mediatrix of human salvation. This title has led to tens of thousands of Hispanics to cry out for the deification of Mary. The Catholic Mary has also been called the "Queen of Heaven", although Scripture clearly points out that the elect is the bride of Christ. Again, many take the "Queen of Heaven" to be an inference of Mary's divinity. Mary's Catholic titles certainly make her sound more and more divine.
Theotokas is a debate all in itself, but thank God that Christ rebuked that sinner Mary at the wedding of Cana. No wonder Mary referred to Christ as her "Savior"!
Sola Fide
Red Beetle
During any discussion of the Virgin Birth I think it is important to remember that Mary is only the mother of Christ's human nature, not His divine. Nestorious, of all people, who was later condemned for teaching that Christ was two persons in one body (although no definition was supplied by his accusers for the terms 'person' or 'nature' which is strange in such a trial), pointed this out in order to oppose those who worshipped Mary in his day under the belief that Mary was a goddess who begot Christ's divinity. In other words, he opposed Mary being called "the Mother of God" for the reason that one might easily misunderstand this to mean that Christ gets His divinity from Mary. Such an idea would also necessarily imply that Mary was divine too. Seems Nestorious was interested in precise definition, perhaps his controversy over the Incarnation was a subtle challenge to the church to define key terms such as: person, essence, and so on? After all, Nestorious held that Christ was fully God and fully man and hypostatically united, but he chose to call those predicates "one body / two natures". This is all very interesting. What did Christ lack in order for him not to be considered a human person, if in fact he was fully human? Can one be fully human and not be a human person? If one is not a human person, then does this not imply that one is less than fully human? One must certainly have a clear definition for person in such a controversy. Can anyone here give a definition? Hey, let's get back to Mary and the Virgin Birth!
Many Hispanics today, as most Catholics world wide, worship Mary, and she has even been called the co-mediatrix of human salvation. This title has led to tens of thousands of Hispanics to cry out for the deification of Mary. The Catholic Mary has also been called the "Queen of Heaven", although Scripture clearly points out that the elect is the bride of Christ. Again, many take the "Queen of Heaven" to be an inference of Mary's divinity. Mary's Catholic titles certainly make her sound more and more divine.
Theotokas is a debate all in itself, but thank God that Christ rebuked that sinner Mary at the wedding of Cana. No wonder Mary referred to Christ as her "Savior"!
Sola Fide
Red Beetle
cyberjosh
Member
- Oct 19, 2005
- 3,472
- 11
Trust me, we've had many a debate (and many threads) just arguing over Catholic beliefs. This has been debated many times. As for the "Queen of Heaven" part, that's pretty sad that some think that because the reference to the "Queen of Heaven" in the Old Testament was refering to a Pagan Godess whom the Israelites had idolatrously been worshiping. I'd like to see Catholics who believe that explain how they would worship Mary as a Godess before she was even born.
But I'm not here to bash Catholic doctrine so I'll leave this alone for now.
God Bless,
~Josh
P
PDoug
Guest
- Thread starter
- #144
I don’t understand. Aren’t all women who have faith queens of heaven just as all men who have faith are kings of heaven (Rev. 5:10)? Aren’t all women who have faith goddesses just as all men who have faith are gods (John 10:34)? Mary was the mother of Jesus, but Jesus was greater than her and was before her, just as Jesus was the seed of David, but was greater than David and came before him. Mary therefore is certainly divine (Romans 9:4) and is a queen of heaven – just like all women who have faith.
cyberjosh
Member
- Oct 19, 2005
- 3,472
- 11
No, and if I'm not mistaken the verse that Jesus quotes from in the OT is refering to a limited group of people and not all people, and a wicked group at that. Jesus' point in saying that was to show the Israelites that they shouldn't be so surprised that Jesus called himself God because the title can also be used of men in certain circumstances. It was a sly way of dealing with the problem, and in no way diminished Jesus' high status as being one with God the Father, but it worked.
O
Oscar3
Guest
- Thread starter
- #147
PDoug said:
22:18 I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.
Pdou
by adding the gnostic garbage you are adding or trying to add to scripture
Oats
Member
- Jul 12, 2010
- 1,253
- 0
Deavonreye
Member
- Sep 4, 2010
- 1,257
- 0
Zombie thread. Quath isn't on here anymore, that I'm aware of.
As for "checking sources", . . . have you? There were many pre-christian pagan religions with virgin births. You just have to do some research, if you're interested. If not, no big deal.
Oats
Member
- Jul 12, 2010
- 1,253
- 0
i have done research
The Gospel story is unique
Christ had a virgin birth to avoid original sin
Deavonreye
Member
- Sep 4, 2010
- 1,257
- 0
Then you obviously haven't done an exhaustive study, including the old hebrew word meaning.
I'm not going to point the direction out to you, . . . and if you wish to believe as you do, then fine. No real harm in it.