Actually, if you compare some Jewish beliefs to Christian beliefs based on the same scripture, the Jewish beliefs make more sense.
We don’t need man made titles open to total misunderstanding (which clearly happened in RC history), to support Bible truth Jesus is both God and man.
God bearer, Ok. Mother of God, no way. She conceived His humanity, NOT His Deity.
You said it yourself. Jesus is fully God. Mary ous Jesus’ mother. Ergo Mary is the mother of God.
Are you familiar with some more modern versions of this kind of perspective? A child dies, and someone says, “God’s will.” A child has cancer and someone says, “God’s plan.” Someone struggles with hardship, but in the end, the very struggles bring about something good and someone says, “God knew what He was doing.”
Some believe that God’s will is so encompassing that one cannot raise a finger or take a single bite of food without it being God’s will. Despite murder being against God’s commandment, this goes so far as to explain that if someone is murdered, it is actually God’s will that they be murdered.
While Christians proclaim all glory goes to God, this basically comes from the idea that credit for everything goes to God. In the story of Pharaoh we see this playing out. If Pharaoh had willingly released the Jews, credit would have gone to Pharaoh and perhaps to the gods of Egypt, which Pharaoh worshiped. Ah, but credit belongs to God…
Now look at what modern psychologists and even most people know about human behavior in trying to convince people to change their opinions. The harder one tries to convince that person, the more they dig in (the more their hearts are hardened. Had the Jewish people convinced Pharaoh to give in, they would have received credit for being able to successfully negotiate with Pharaoh. But…credit belongs to God.
When we read these ancient accounts, it is vital to keep in mind the common perspective of that time. The Jews humbly wanted all credit (glory) of the event to be given to God. That is what their story reflects to them.
There are many good reasons why people are atheist, and I am betting you have a good reason as well. However, an extremely poor reason for becoming an atheist is to take a story from another era, from another culture, and redefine it so one feels they have a kind of permission or validity for their atheism.
Modern culture sees Lot’s wife looking back as simple curiosity. Now let’s take a look at what the account was revealing to people of that time. The Hebrew language has very few words and is objective (paints plain pictures) in nature. English has more words than any other language and it is subjective in nature.
The example I like to use is comparing how the two languages describe the emotion of anger. English says, “angry” and subjectively we all imagine our own version of an angry person. In Hebrew, a very literal translations is, “flaring nostrils” It paints a picture.
Today, we advise wives in an abusive situation, “Leave! And never look back!” Many do exactly this. But some leave, only to return to the abuser. Which brings us back to the story of Lot’s wife. The Hebrew paints a picture of Lot and his daughters obediently following God’s directive. Lot’s wife didn’t think there was any need to flee to the hills, that Lot was making a big deal out of nothing. Think of her as a modern woman who preferred city living to life in the boondocks. She is digging in her heels, lagging behind, trying to convince her husband to return to all they had left. In other words, Lot’s wife wanted to return to the abusive situation occurring in town.
Was she mother to Jesus? Was Jesus split in half during all his childhood? Mary was mother to the entirety of Jesus, and part of Jesus entirety is his divinity. The humanity was conceived with divinity, it was not part of the conception but of who Jesus, her son, is and always was/is.
All I am asking is stick to the actual reasoning, the actual history of why early Christians had to insist that Mary indeed was the mother of God. Those who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus split from the Church early on. Jesus is divine. Mary is his mother. So yes, she was the mother of God. Paradoxically, Mary is also a child of God.
My reason for being an atheist is just simply i have no justification to believe there is a god. I am just describing parts of the process and how i came to believe that my justification for believing was erroneous. I didnt bring up god’s will specifically. That is a good explample that you bring up, and something i will consider. Another example, i always knew why sye ten bruggencate was wrong according to reality in that he was simply inserting god as a shortcut to the problem of hard solipsism, but i figured out today that he is wrong even about scripture.
I can see that, however it does not make the story any better considering if god is omnipotent and knows everything, that by definition means that before he decided to lead them out, he would have known that his daughters would get him so drunk that he had no ability to consent and have sex with him, committing not only rape, but incest as well. It does clarify what lott’s wife did however.
One justification for belief is that another had an encounter or an event with God. It makes sense, then, that others would want to examine the account describing this event. It is also crucial it is understood properly.
The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain paints a much different picture than The rein in Spain falls mainly on the plane. Or, The reign in Spain falls mainly on the plain. (No beauty in Spanish royalty! 
Even ‘omnipotence’ and ‘omniscience’ have boundaries. ‘Omnipotence’ means possessing all power that is possible to possess. ‘Omniscience’ is knowing all that is knowable. Scripture tells us that God says He knows the beginning of His plan and He knows its end. People outside of scripture have jumped to the conclusion that this also means that God knows everyone’s plans and action before they even take place. People may say this, but God did not. He was referencing His own plans.
I think we humans ought to take great care and refrain from spinning our own conclusions based on anything God says. We should simply work with what He says–no more, no less.
Alone in the wilderness, after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, Lot’s daughters reached their own conclusion that they were now the only people left on all the earth. The destiny of the human race was in their hands. Since Dad wouldn’t face reality and do what needed to be done, they knew how to get around him.
I try to understand as much as i can. Your posts are helpful.
That is kind of you to say. When I was little (a mere tot) I saw no reason why I, too, could not have an encounter with God, just like Noah, Abraham, and Moses. It took decades for this to happen, but when it did, I, too, was confused by some Bible stories.
Since Old Testament stories were written by Jews, in Hebrew, I began reading Jewish commentary. One of the first things I learned is that Rabbis will tell you, scripture is to be studied, not read.
Further, it was extremely helpful to understand the basic cultures and histories of that time period, as well as the spoken word. I did not learn the language so I could speak and read in it, but learned its internal structuring and how it compared to modern English.
My grandfather was an atheist, my husband is an atheist from an atheist family. I am sincere in stating that a person’s internal belief is that there is no God, and they cannot convince themselves otherwise, is a valid point.
The argument that after a simple read-through of Bible stories is enough to argue against the existence of God is not enough.
It was unnecessary. God Bearer is scriptural, Mother of God is not. The two natures are not fused in the Person of Jesus. Mary is mother of Jesus’ human nature, period. Because God the Eternal Son was incarnate in that nature, she is “theotokos” God bearer.
Not mother of God.
According to Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun), the title is misunderstood by many Catholics, and they DO worship Mary as God’s Mother.
Of course the educated erudite Catholic knows the difference, but convincing me every Catholic does is impossible.
Therefore, the title misleads some into idolatry, an abomination.
If it were so ERGO, then Christ and His apostles would have put the title in the Bible.
Maybe you’re right. It was an oversite of the Catholic church to leave it out when they were compiling the bible.
That’s why I asked which “version” of the Catholic church.
The first version was “Eastern Orthodox”, the council of Nicea, the canon etc. All were mostly eastern bishops.
Everyone was still “catholic” then, but it was changing. Rome was growing, wedded to the Empire via Constantine.
Just a few decades before they, Christians were still hiding in Rome in the Catacombs.
It would be profitable someone list all the major revisions in Catholic doctrine that “left many Catholics behind”.
Fact is, A Council of Trent Catholic would call both a Vatican II Catholic, and a Third Century Catholic, apostates and if in Spain, would do an Inquisition on them for whatever it is they tortured people for in the day.
So to be precise, the OP should define which version of Catholicism he believes everyone should be.
I’d vote for the 1st Century Catholic, well before the pope and Mary of God nonsense.
1 Like
2 problems here.
- OP ous not a he.
- The OP never said everyone should be Catholic. That is a fabrication of your own making.
Great post.
Catholicism traces its roots and its Bible interpretations back to Christ and the Apostles (known as Apostolic teachings). The Seven Sacraments form the circle of Jesus’ teachings and practices while here on earth. Why abandon Catholicism? Why not return to original teachings?
- That’s sexist, pronoun shouldn’t matter
- By implication, “why” is to “everyone”
The ambiguity as to which version of Catholicism comes from the reference to the “seven sacraments”. Roman Catholics today say there are seven: ordination, confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction, penance, baptism, and the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper.
But only two meet the three required qualifications to be an “ordinance”: Lord’s supper and Baptism.
The three requirements are 1)commanded by Christ; 2)recorded in Acts as a practice; 3)theological exposition of it in the NT.
So, the version of ROMAN Catholicism that believes in the seven sacraments might be the recommended version, but that skips over all those versions of Catholicism that existed before the inaccurate list.
And exactly where does it say it isn’t possible for God to know people’s future actions? Where in the Bible are the limits expressly laid put?
