Understanding Mary - Mother of God
- Thread starter Mungo
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
How are famous preachers sometimes affected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Preceding verse:
"Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you."
Do not add or take away from the decrees God was about to teach the Israelites not the whole BIble, otherwise you are dismissing the whole of Jesus' teaching in the NT.
Nor do I but I was giving you the Catholic position. This is the Catholic forum
I think Adam and Eve were divine...Before The Fall.
No created being is God. Angels are divine creatures and they are not God. Adam & Eve were most certainly divine before the fall. If they weren't exactly where did the fall part come into play? What did we lose. God said you will die the same day you eat from that tree. Well they ate from from the tree, and Adam lived to be 930 years old or thereabouts? So Adam did not die in the flesh obviously. But He did die spiritually.
What else can that mean except they lost their divinity?
No we wont be gods in Heaven. We were created to serve God. And He's the best Boss I've ever had. We are the Body of Christ (spiritualy) --HE is the Head. The Head is the boss. The Head tells the foot where to go. We aint God! Only one God! No man comes unto the Father except He go through Jesus Christ first.
Why are you so hostile agains Jesus?
You are sadly mistaken to feel that Genesis is irrevelant.
And I agree with you that Jesus was only fully man when He waked the earth. He gave up His divinity to come save us.
He's got it back now of course. He might've saved His Jesus the man outfit. Lol.
Agreed! Imagine that! The bottom line is, no denominational doctrine can contradict the written word . If devised by means of Revelation, then it still will not contradict the written word. God's kingdom is not a house divide. For God is the Author and interpreter of His book. Catholics tend to have a problem with that.
As for me being Catholic or not, that has been a topic of much debate. I do hold some objections to some Catholic doctrines. If I do, it is simply because I object to a lie, because I recognize truth.
So are these men considered Catholic:
St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas were the two main theological opponents of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In 1140, Bernard famously illustrated the prevailing negative attitude toward concupiscence — for Bernard it was unthinkable that the Holy Spirit had been involved in anything so inherently “evil” as natural Immaculate conception of a child between a man and woman. Thomas Aquinas used the doctrine of universal redemption to argue against the concept of the Immaculate Conception, saying that if Mary had not been stained by original sin then it would detract from Christ’s dignity as the savior of all people.
So am I Catholic, let the reader decide. But for sure the Catholic church calls these two men saints of the Catholic Church even "Doctor of the Church" concerning St. Thomas Aquinas.
I happen to hold a different understanding of few things. Nothing major, more like deeper meaning and proper perspective concerning timing of things. I have verifiable facts to support my claims which have not been proven wrong by any Catholic , nor any denomination for that matter. What I find more fascinating is your interest .
No He didn't give up His divinity, that makes no sense. He simply did not think it important to boast. But all His actions were proof of His Divinity. Sometimes actions speak louder than words.
Jonh 3:
Jesus and Nicodemus
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him.” 3Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”…
Basic def. of Divine: According to Merriam-Webster, Collins English Dictionary and the American Heritage Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, the word divine is an adjective that means relating to a God or deity, or supremely good or heavenly.
So what are you talking about?
Philippians 2:
The Attitude of Christ
5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness of men.
None of this says he stopped being divine, but, that is not what people would grasp. Him being relatable as a HUMAN, was the means to bring men into His grasp, not that He put off being divine and all. Nothing more and nothing less. God became relatable . Likeness is not total as exact- but relatable . He did so to make man the likeness of God. People do not become God Himself but like. As for being relatable the " Son of Man" Title meaning- (made a man), is a relatable Title. He saves man from his sins, can't do that by putting away your divinity . He just didn't want to put people off by boasting about His Divinity. After all, He is the only one who can boast, ya know what I mean? I'm just saying , made the whole earth in 6 days an on the 7th He rested, that is some clout! Definitely lays dibs on some bragging rights!
Precisely! You've just hit on my main argument against Christianity. It violates its own scriptures.
Uhm you know that "a divinity" is a synonym for "a god" right? So by saying Adam and Eve were divine you are calling them gods. I see nothing to indicate Adam and Eve were gods though.
Since you did not indicate that on your profile, and since "God is My Judge" is probably not your real name (and even if it was your real name, it does not tell me your gender), there's no way I could have known that. That said, I need to get in the habit of using "they".
What does that have to do with adding or taking away? Whether it is past, present or future, we are not to add or take away. And in context of the present argument put before by T. E . Smith, it is universally applicable regardless of time or space.
Christianity claims to hold to the Tanakh (what they call the Old Testament) and the New Testament. However, since the New Testament adds to the Torah, the New Testament contradicts the Torah's command not to add. Accordingly, the New Testament is entirely inconsistent with the Torah, and one cannot have both. But the NT also depends on the Torah, so without the Torah, there would be no NT. It thus follows that the NT must be rejected. (I also go a step further and reject the Torah.)
And what I disagree with is just your opinion.
We are going off topic.
Please can you keep to it.
Last edited:
I disagree with your analysis but this is going off topic so I won't explain further. If you wish to argue against the whole basis of Christianity then please take it to the main part of the Forum.
The topic is Understanding Mary - Mother of God.
Please keep to it.
No, rather it's God's. I didn't coin the phrase in question nor did I put it forth to you. I simply agree with God's word. I have no need to convince you of anything, I just like debating. Those who are not simply here to debase will actually gain in knowledge. I'm sound in faith. I'm simply passing time and sharpening my intellectual prowess. If you have actual legitimate reproof against God's word share it. I don't get angry I settle accounts. Simply disagreeing any 1st grader can do and is not proving your point. And trust me , not my first rodeo, I haven't been debunked yet.
Did you figure this all out on your own?
I think they have a pill for that, ask your doctor.
I'll keep to it. Let's discuss The Immaculate Conception. Now before you go flipping off at the keyboard, I believe she is the Immaculate Conception. I just believe it in a different way. A way that I can prove and do not need the use of Apocrypha books written two centuries after the fact. I will show with Canon -66, 73, 75, 81 whichever, what it truly means. If you are up to the task I think it will be quite engaging.
No contradiction.
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish …
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
John 5:
35John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you were willing for a season to bask in his light. 36But I have testimony more substantial than that of John. For the works that the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works I am doing—testify about Me that the Father has sent Me. 37And the Father who sent Me has Himself testified about Me. You have never heard His voice nor seen His form, 38nor does His word abide in you, because you do not believe the One He sent.
The Witness of Scripture
39You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, 40yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.
41I do not accept glory from men, 42but I know you, that you do not have the love of God within you. 43I have come in My Father’s name, and you have not received Me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44How can you believe if you accept glory from one another, yet do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?
45Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”