Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:She had an influence on Him in His human form.

Besides semantics, that's what I'm saying. That's why the term, "Mother of God" just doesn't sit right with me.

How about this for an idea?

Marys only sin was original sin. God chose her to bear His Son, God Himself, as a human. Maybe she was as close to living like Christ, Godly as any of us dream to

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:If "Mother of God" is the proper, scriptural term, why is it never in scripture? Instead, the term, "Mother of Christ" or "Mother of Jesus" is used.

For the same reason 'Christ is God' is not found in scripture but we know it's true.

Sorry for my slowness today, but I'm still not seeing it.

What's not to see Rick, neither 'Mother of God' nor 'Christ is God' is found in scripture. We know Christ is God (even though the term does not appear in scripture). Why is it so strange that 'Mother of God' can also be true even though the term does not appear in scripture or that 'Trinity' is true even though it does not appear in scripture?

Storyteller wrote:How about this for an idea?

Marys only sin was original sin. God chose her to bear His Son, God Himself, as a human. Maybe she was as close to living like Christ, Godly as any of us dream to

Now you're dangerously approaching Catholic territory. Proceed at your own peril.

There's not even a consensus that nestorius even believed the heresy he was accused of. If he didn't, then Christotokos may be correct.

RickD wrote:There's not even a consensus that nestorius even believed the heresy he was accused of. If he didn't, then Christotokos may be correct.

Any time anyone tried to separate Jesus the God from Jesus the man they have fallen in one heresy or another.

Byblos wrote:

Storyteller wrote:How about this for an idea?

Marys only sin was original sin. God chose her to bear His Son, God Himself, as a human. Maybe she was as close to living like Christ, Godly as any of us dream to

Now you're dangerously approaching Catholic territory. Proceed at your own peril.

All by myself

Okay..

Communion, why do I have to be a practising Catholic?

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:If "Mother of God" is the proper, scriptural term, why is it never in scripture? Instead, the term, "Mother of Christ" or "Mother of Jesus" is used.

For the same reason 'Christ is God' is not found in scripture but we know it's true.

Sorry for my slowness today, but I'm still not seeing it.

What's not to see Rick, neither 'Mother of God' nor 'Christ is God' is found in scripture. We know Christ is God (even though the term does not appear in scripture). Why is it so strange that 'Mother of God' can also be true even though the term does not appear in scripture or that 'Trinity' is true even though it does not appear in scripture?

To me it's different. "Mother of Jesus" is different than "Mother of God". And only the former is in scripture.

I realize that a word doesn't have to be in scripture to be biblical. Like Trinity. It seems to me that if a title of someone is true, like "Mother of God", it would have to be clear in scripture. At least as clear as "Mother of Jesus", which IS in scripture.

Perhaps with more studying I'll see what you and Jac are saying. I just don't see it now.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:There's not even a consensus that nestorius even believed the heresy he was accused of. If he didn't, then Christotokos may be correct.

Any time anyone tried to separate Jesus the God from Jesus the man they have fallen in one heresy or another.

And you're sure Nestorius did that? There's no consensus that he did.

Storyteller wrote:How about this for an idea?

Marys only sin was original sin. God chose her to bear His Son, God Himself, as a human. Maybe she was as close to living like Christ, Godly as any of us dream to

Byblos is right. That sounds too Catholic.

I bet you can't make the argument from scripture that Mary was without sin. No cheating by using Catholic doctrine. Scripture only.

But Christ is God.

Why is it different?

Acknowledging her as the Mother of God doesnt mean you acknowledge her importance in Catholicism.

Give me five mins then, will see.

RickD wrote:To me it's different. "Mother of Jesus" "Jesus is the Christ" is different than "Mother of God" "Jesus is God." And only the former is in scripture.

I realize that a word doesn't have to be in scripture to be biblical. Like Trinity. It seems to me that if a title of someone is true, like "Mother of God" "Jesus is God", it would have to be clear in scripture. At least as clear as "Mother of Jesus" "Jesus is the Christ", which IS in scripture.

Perhaps with more studying I'll see what you and Jac are saying. I just don't see it now.

Maybe that will help.

In the meantime, I'll just suggest that truth doesn't ask you to be comfortable or easy with it. It just asks for acceptance. Comfort and ease often comes, if it comes at all, later. But you've got it backwards if you want to become comfortable with truth before you can accept it.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:To me it's different. "Mother of Jesus" "Jesus is the Christ" is different than "Mother of God" "Jesus is God." And only the former is in scripture.

I realize that a word doesn't have to be in scripture to be biblical. Like Trinity. It seems to me that if a title of someone is true, like "Mother of God" "Jesus is God", it would have to be clear in scripture. At least as clear as "Mother of Jesus" "Jesus is the Christ", which IS in scripture.

Perhaps with more studying I'll see what you and Jac are saying. I just don't see it now.

Maybe that will help.

In the meantime, I'll just suggest that truth doesn't ask you to be comfortable or easy with it. It just asks for acceptance. Comfort and ease often comes, if it comes at all, later. But you've got it backwards if you want to become comfortable with truth before you can accept it.

No Jac. Crossing out and changing what I said doesn't help.

I'm not usually uncomfortable with theological truth. I have no bias one way or another with this. Even though I know if believing that "Mother of God" is biblical doesn't mean I have to believe in the Catholic Mary, the term still didn't seem right. And usually when something doesn't seem right, it isn't. At least when it comes to something pretty basic in theology. I didn't understand divine simplicity, yet there was no feeling of uneasiness that came with it. I just didn't understand it. I'm getting the same feeling of uneasiness that I get when someone tries to tell me that the prosperity gospel is biblical, even though it's not explicit in scripture. It's a discernment kind of uneasiness.

RickD wrote:And usually when something doesn't seem right, it isn't. At least when it comes to something pretty basic in theology.

That just doesn't seem right.

If Mary wasn't the mother of God, who was she the mother of?