by slimboyfat 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
*
What does Colossians 1:15 mean according to rabbinical sources?
*
*
*
Proverbs 8:22 according to the Cappadocian Fathers
*
*
*
Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted
*
Yes, You Should Believe In The Trinity
*
In Defense of the Trinity Doctrine
*
Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ
*
"Should You Believe in the Trinity?"
*
Did the Trinity Come from Paganism?
*
*
*
Am I right to assume that the person arguing for acceptance of belief that Jesus was and is God also accepts therefore that Mary was the Mother of God?
Not arguing, just asking.
@LostintheFog1999
Luke 1:43 specifically referred to Mary as the "mother of my Lord."
Mary is the "Mother of God," but not a goddess. The dogma does not teach that divinity originates from Mary, but rather that whom Mary gave birth to was truly God. He did not assume divinity, but from the moment of his conception, he was truly human—an unconscious and helpless embryo—and at the same time the omnipotent and omniscient God. Therefore, Mary's divine motherhood proclaims and reinforces the dogma that Christ is truly God and truly human, in whom the two natures are united. It is no coincidence that Nestorius, who so separated the two natures in Jesus that it was hardly possible to speak of a single person, also attacked the term "Mother of God." He understood that the expression guarantees the teaching that in Jesus, the two natures are united in one person. There is no notion of theogony here, as motherhood directly involves only conception and birth, and Mary conceived and gave birth to God. This, however, does not mean that God originated entirely from her. St. Thomas Aquinas rightly points out: "Even in natural birth, it is true that the mother gives only the body, not the soul, to the offspring, since the latter is directly created by God at the moment of conception. Nevertheless, we never say that a woman is the mother of Peter's body, but only that she is Peter's mother" For the same reason, St. Gregory Nazianzen says: "He who does not believe that Mary is the Mother of God is godless".
Justification: Our proposition is essentially a syllogism (the logical conclusion of a third statement from two premises):
It indicates that Jesus born from her is the eternal Son according to his person, that is, a divine person. Therefore, Mary can be called the Mother of God, even if the Son took only the human nature from her.
The term Theotokos can already be found in Origen. Its true significance emerged during the Christological debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries. It was implicitly referenced by the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in 381 when they defended the divinity of the Son and his true incarnation from Mary. Explicitly, the Council of Ephesus in 430 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 sanctioned its use. Subsequently, it entered the Church's liturgy (the Feast of the Motherhood of Mary) and the consciousness of the faithful. - The doctrine of Theoktokos opposes the Gnostic view, affirming that Jesus assumed a real, not merely apparent, body from Mary; and it opposes Nestorius, affirming that in Jesus, the divine and human natures are united in one person, the person of the Son, making him one reality. Nestorius wanted to recognize only the term Christotokos, 'Christ-bearer,' meaning that Jesus, born of Mary, was only a human person, possibly later filled by the Word at his baptism, thus becoming the Christ, the Anointed.
The title "Mother of God" is not applied to Mary by Scripture itself, but its two theological precedents are present: namely, that Jesus was born of Mary, and that he was truly the Son of God, that is, a divine person. It must also be seen that in Mary, motherhood was not merely a biological process, but a real personal mother-child relationship. The title and its usage thus contribute to a deeper understanding of the mystery of Christ and the mystery of Mary. It acknowledges that in Christ, the divine and human natures truly form a unity, that is, his humanity was united with the person of the Son (hypostatic union) from the first moment of his earthly life. Furthermore, Mary gave her child what a mother can give, but the one born of her, in terms of his personality, was God, and Mary is the mother of this person.
Theology has always regarded Mary's Theotokos-motherhood as the greatest grace privilege and the source of her entire sanctification, as no one could enter into a closer relationship with Christ's humanity, the source of grace, than she, the mother. However, her motherhood rests on God's creative activity, and Jesus's virginal conception must be interpreted in this way. Therefore, her privilege has nothing to do with mythological analogies where gods engage in sexual relations with earthly women.
It is natural that God, as such, could not have a mother. But because Jesus was both God and man in one person, it is perfectly correct to call the Virgin Mary the "Mother of God." For although she was not the mother of God as such, she was the mother of Jesus, who was also God. Similarly, we rightly call the Pope's mother the mother of the Pope, even though she gave birth to him not as a Pope, but as a small child.
I once heard the best explanation for the concept of a trinity of one God, three persons. That explanation used water as an example. Water (God) exists in three states...liquid, gas (steam) and solid (ice), ie: three separate "persons" or states, yet each one is still water. It is simplistic, but I could understand the concept in a way I had never thought of.
Three states does not represent the Trinity doctrine. Trinitarians do not teach that Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one person in three states.
aqwsed12345 perhaps if you stuck the the Scriptures alone instead of reading The Catholic Encyclopedia, you might occasionally make a valid point.
The trinity is a man-made doctrine to take focus and worship away from Jehovah and put it on others that they won't object to.
People say they look to Jesus as being God because of John 1:1. That was written 65 years after Jesus died. What did they believe prior to that? Nothing was said in Acts about trinity or Jesus being God. Infact the opposite. Stephen saw Jesus at God's right hand, not a 3 person God.
The support texts are taken out of context: I and the father are one. Come on, that is contra trinity but they use it.
They rely on Jesus' enemies to get definitions of Jesus such as Thomas statement and the Pharisees.
They say John 8:58 is connected to Ex 3:14. Some pastor made that connection sometime in the past, but why didn't the apostles make that connection?
The trinity has spurious texts added such as 1 Tim 3:16, 1 john 5;7; Matt 28:19.
The trinity is a man-made doctrine to take focus and worship away from Jehovah...
Rattigan, .....do you still imagine a conspiracy by evil agents of the Devil?
Thousands of hours have been spent by patient people, trying to assist former JWs that doctrines like the trinity were sincere efforts to harmonize divergent views of Jesus found in the NT. Their mistake, of course, was presuming there was a 'mystery' concealed in the contradictions.
The pre-Christian conceptualizations of God included similarly contradictory descriptions. As brief examples: while some passages said God cannot be seen, the Kabod of God is. This Kabod (Glory) speaks, listens and acts. Is then the Kabod God or not? Likewise passages that introduce a Mal'ak of God involved in stories that otherwise refer to God speaking and acting. Many Jews objected to the notion that God interacted directly with lowly humans (despite ancient tradition expressly saying so) and adjusted the texts accordingly. In this way God's separateness is preserved.
Famously God is described as using a feminine agent "Wisdom" to perform his will in creating the physical world and providing the Torah. In a parallel way, Jews, as evidenced by Philo of Alexanderia expounded on the 'Logos' as an emanation i.e.. 'Son' of God that was at the same time effectively God in a certain role.
Christain writers, understanding Christ to be an emanation of God, naturally described him in identical terms, Logos, Son, even Wisdom and Light. It was not a demonic conspiracy.
The new testament and the ambiguous use of the term lord is rooted in a believe that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord, the word of the Lord, The Glory of the Lord, The Wisdom of the Lord in the old testament. The figure that seemed to be separate and yet equal with god.
The objections to this usually follow three paths.
1. Jesus speaking in this humanity. John 17.3
2. Verses out context. ie ( firstborn of creation )
3. God somehow gives his power and authority to another person who asks acts and speaks as god but isn't, those making Jehovah just a god.
I understand a lot of this is quite if a tree falls in the forest , what came first , the chicken or the egg etc etc.
The quite remarkable part is how little a JW knows about the new testament narrative. It is just nuts that a person can go door to door claiming to teach the bible with no clue of the unfolding story.
"do you still imagine a conspiracy by evil agents of the Devil"
Must be. How else do people get the scriptures wrong. Make up scriptures and miss the meaning and purpose of Jesus? They elevate him to the status of equal to God when that's not his place.
