Quotes from a forum discussion. Black is me. Others are others.
The theology of atonement, if I remember correctly, was worked out by Anselm in the 11th or 12th century. The idea of God paying the 'ransom' of Jesus to Satan for our souls, is the weakest analogy for the actual teaching. I'm not convinced that was what Paul meant either. God doesn't make a transaction with Satan to pay for our sins. Christ literally destroys the debt. He doesn't pay it; He actually makes it disappear. The crucifixion is the black hole into which the punishment for our sins is logically unraveled. It's a qualitatively different kind of atonement, at-one-ment, restoring our relationship to God, making us whole again, since this is the relationship we were created for. The crucifix is a powerful symbol to a world that cannot seem to get over its own suffering. The message is not that suffering makes you holy directly, the message is that letting Christ suffer for you in faith is holiness. It's a very common misunderstanding. The crucifixion leads to the Resurrection, literally for Christ and sacramentally for us. We take the cross as our rallying cry because until the day that suffering ends, Christ is still crucified in us.
I've been thinking about your comments on the cross, and I have some thoughts to add to the conversation, which I'm sure we'll continue face to face soon enough.
In a nutshell, I think it is important to recognise the powerful symbol of the cross as Christians because it is a symbol of torture and pure evil that the Lord Himself was able invert into an act of love and redemption.
This is not to say that he was paying blood sacrifice to an angry father God, as so many atheists, infidels, and heretics in the Church love to peddle, but rather to say that he willingly submitted to authority, even though it was evil, and in the very moments of his deepest suffering his cry was "father forgive them". It is that transcendent-of-self love that epitomises the Way of Jesus, and it was in fact the method by which he defeated death and appeased the angry "god of this earth" who demanded the blood.
Satan demands blood.
Jesus gave it to Him, under instruction by our Loving Father, and that was the moment that "His heel crushed the serpent's head". Satan couldn't even fathom that he lost in that moment, because Satan can only turn the good to evil, and not evil to good, as the Lord can.
So, I think the cross is still the "crux of the matter" in terms of how we should be like Jesus. He told us to pick up our crosses for a reason. We will all be tested in this life. When we or our children are being tortured by the servants of Satan, I pray that we will all be like our Father enough that we will pray for the forgiveness of our torturers. That is dying to ourselves and it is what the Lord called us to do.
I don't think any of this contradicts your statements about the falsehood of "atonement" before God. It was more "appeasement of Satan" on the cross, and that is what ended his power over us, if only we look to Jesus and emulate his Way, we are free.
I know I am free indeed in the Lord, and I do not fear Satan or his servants, and I certainly don't fear death. I look forward to it, but I pray it only comes at the moment the Lord deems appropriate. I have much work to do here for Him. I am a fisher of men, and there are many lost souls we need to gather to Him.
The proposition that God took on the suffering of every human person is what converted my heart to Christianity. That was the Gospel that literally blew my mind. Even just as an idea, it’s so powerful. Because truly there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another, and God does that in Jesus to the highest possible degree. Moreover, He didn’t just make us even stevens or take the balance back to zero, He opens to us a higher existence now, one where we can actually tax the devil. The devil perverts good in order to destroy, but God inverts evil/death in order to create. That’s why the crucifix was considered by the Church Fathers to be a kind of super-sexual act - it’s not a fetishizing of torture - it’s a higher order insemination of God into history and into our hearts. The blood and water which comes forth from the heart of Christ by the piercing of the lance becomes the water of our rebirth and the Eucharist of our redemption.
But, he didn't take on our suffering. We still suffer, don't we?
The suffering in the world has decreased in proportion to the Church’s influence, i.e. Western Civ. Also, we have a psychological buffer to suffering now that we didn’t have before Christ, that is to say, a philosophical meaning that can be assigned to suffering, which thereby decreases it somewhat, i.e. logos therapy. We also have, through faith and grace, a participation in the suffering of Christ, which is the suffering of the world. It’s like the teaching of turning the other cheek. We are given the power to end the cycle of suffering when we bear it in and through Christ. If I am wronged and I forgive it, like Christ, the punishment for the offense is at least lessened and the probability of repentance on the part of the perpetrator increases. The more authentic the forgiveness, the better the world becomes, inch by inch. There is a weakening of Satan’s power in effect when we suffer through Christ, presuming, as we must, that Lucifer is far more powerful than humanity without The Incarnation.
Didn't he take that suffering that we would get after judgement, if we got what we deserved?
That's the false teaching that came from Paul and through the Church that he instituted. It's not what Jesus taught at all. Paul is the one who came up with the atonement doctrine. YHWH is the name of the tribal god of fire (the volcano of Mt Sinai) who the Hebrew pagans worshiped before Abraham began leading them gradually toward an understanding of the One True God over all. El Shaddai was another name they had for their God, but YHWH eventually won out.
Jesus revealed our Creator as a Loving, Merciful Father and replaced the outdated Hebrew tribal God concept (the judge who demands blood sacrifice for favors and to cover sins).
"Trust the bible". The bible says something happened. You say it didn't. That's "not trusting". Obviously, this is not a matter of some post modern "leap of faith". You only trust after you've comprehensively and continuously investigated, and like every rational and scientific study, is continuous, but you're obviously not going to throw away centuries of verified historical work just because a bunch of left wing no hoper losers start pretending to be authorities and saying previously unthought of ideas that have no basis in logic, no evidence, and no precedent in any school, just because you don't like what it's message does to your life style, are you?
I love the Bible because it contains the life and teachings of Jesus. The Psalms and Proverbs are some of the most beautiful and spiritually based writings of human history, as well. But I also understand that the ancient Hebrew understanding of "God", "YHWH" or "The LORD" are just that; ancient tribal understandings.
Jesus was the true revelation of God, the Loving, Merciful Father. Before that we only had the Angry, Vengeful Fire god (Yahweh of Mr Sinai). This was a very primitive version of understanding the one God over all. Remember, at that time we were in a world that had not been set free from Satan, the rebellious Angelic Prince. So, it's no wonder that there were tribes of lost humans doing blood sacrifices and imagining that God was angry and wrathful.
Do i believe that they had a proper understanding of God, before Jesus? No. Do i believe that every single story in the Bible is true? No. Not remotely. Much of it is either allegory or strait up fairy tale.
But, do I take it as a sufficient enough revelation of Jesus, the most important human who ever lived? The literal incarnation of God among us as a man, living and demonstrating the Will of God, our Creator and true Eternal Father? Yes. I do.
Does that make sense to you, that I can believe in God and Jesus but not every word and every story in the Bible?
Just caught up on the conversation. I would have to say I disagree with you on a fair lot of this. However I am happy to call you a brother in Christ as you believe that he saves and is truly God in the flesh. Would I be correct in saying your position is a little like that of the Marcionites minus the teachings of Paul? That's the vibe I am getting from what I have read. If not feel free to put it straight.
I guess my main point of disagreement would be that I see the entirety of the scriptures (both the Jewish scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the apostolic scriptures written in the Greek that were recognised by the early church) as one coherent mosaic of literary genius that gives us insight into God's dealings with the material universe, particularly focusing on his relationship to man. I also think that the narrative of the scriptures is centred on God's personal revelation through the Son (who appears as the Angel of YWHW and a number of other figures in the Jewish scriptures before becoming incarnate as Jesus). I also think we see humanity become increasingly depraved as sin spreads and grows across communities and within individual people. And I think we clearly see that God is displeased, even rightly angry at this sinful behaviour. Yet we also see that he is not willing to let mankind die in their sins and be held captive by the deceiver. As a result he goes forward with the plan he has had since the beginning of time: to send his Son to earth in order to show us what imaging God really looks like (bringing healing, justice and reconciliation among other things) and to pay the just penalty that our sin deserves so that we may be righteous before the Father (or Satan if you're so inclined to go with that atonement theory). Now the understanding that each person has of the atonement is bound to be different as it is not 100% clear, however the scriptures do talk about Christ making atonement for our sins (Paul isn't alone in saying this as John also speaks of it). Of course this may seem like none of this matters if you look to the Gospels only. However Jesus says that the scriptures (that being the Jewish scriptures) testify about him. And throughout those scriptures which Jesus held to we see that God is both angry at sin but also loves humanity so much that he paid the ultimate price to rescue them from sin and death.
Anyway I got a bit rambly there. Glad to have you here and hope you can take song nuggets of gold away from what I wrote (I am sure there is plenty there which you disagree with). I myself whilst disagreeing with you on some of the finer theological points am thankful for your reminder to look to Jesus' life as a clear revelation of God's character.
You have succinctly summarized the main pillars of Bible Belief that I will be attempting to dismantle and replace. I understand EXACTLY where you're coming from, as this is the perspective I was raised to believe in. Have had many debates with fine men who believe the same thing, as well. The thing is, there is so much that you must take for granted in order for that logic structure to hold water. And at the end of it all, what do you have? A God who concocted a plan that included the fall of Adam, the fall of the whole world, and ultimately the torturous death (only temporarily) of His own beloved son? Not to mention literally billions of souls tormented in Hell for eternity as a result of this plan. For what exactly? Some type of drama that reveals his love to us, the lucky chosen few who believed in it? And what makes us so special?
I don't mean to be obtuse here or to make an oversimplified, cringe-atheist argument. But there is something lacking in the logic at the back end of the story you believe in, as well as in the core presuppositions the story is built upon (Bible Belief). I think I have a keen enough understanding of where the confusion is coming from and wish to offer a re-framing of some key details that could bring it into a whole new, much less confusing light. Looking forward to it and will appreciate help from you along the way.
The question of evil is the hardest one, in my experience. I agree that Sola Scriptura doesn’t work and that it wasn’t the faith of Christianity for the first 1500 years. Catholics believed in an authority structure, an ecclesial body, that would safe guard and hand down the faith until the end of days. That Church used the Bible as a primary source, but it never lost sight of its need for authoritative interpretation. Otherwise, it’s 50,000 denominations. All the great heresies quoted Scripture too. The Christian Faith includes faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretations. Men like The Kurgan, with a militaristic obedience to Church doctrine are much closer to understanding what Christianity is than post-modern Christians who think right doctrine is still being invented or hiding somewhere waiting to be discovered.
So, in other words, these questions were discussed and settled (to sufficient degree for practical living) a long time ago. As a student of theology for 15 years now, with an MA in Theology, I can attest that there are thousands of in-depth analyses of these questions already. Which isn’t to say that no mystery remains or that nothing more can be said. But it’s slightly disingenuous to try to answer them without reviewing the literature first.
Evil is a logical necessity following free-will. God’s plan was that we should master our created freedom, because freedom is the highest expression of love. You can’t have freedom and not have evil. God allows evil but does not directly will it. How His prefect Will can assimilate our evil choices is a mystery we cannot penetrate, but we must accept it as within possibility, since He is God. If you believe that Love is the mastery of freedom, individual and collective, or to say it differently, the maximizing of creative power, than it’s really one single mystery that flows through the whole of reality. And the logic holds.
I've never had a problem interpreting scripture and believe sola scripture. Of course there are edge case variations and denominations but there's nothing wrong with that. You can't bring in people like the post moderns because they're not even Christians and are willfully attacking Christ. The whole world quotes the bible but that doesn't invalidate sola scripture.
There are Post-modern ‘Christians’, but it’s just an interpretive framework, essentially subjectivism. It’s not just inconsequential fringe interpretive differences, although we have those too. Sola Scriptura gives a completely different understanding of the Incarnation than historical Christianity.
Sola Scriptura is absurd.
No one with a functioning IQ of at least 100 can possibly “accept” it on the facts. You have to be brainwashed into it from a young age, just like Islam.
No one sane wakes up after reading the patristic fathers’ writing of even just the first 2 centuries AD and then says:”oh yeah... EVERYONE got it wrong, the Bible they put together wasn’t the right one and the guys who kept the tradition and decided what books composed it 300 years after Jesus ascended?.... yeah those guys..... they were all wrong! You know who fixed it? This German guy who wanted to eat and drink and screw nuns! Yeah. He ripped out seven books from the same book that he then went on to say was the only thing you need. That’s right. Not THE Bible. What you need is the MARTIN LUTHER ABRIDGED VERSION! That’s the ticket! He was obviously a wise prophet since he said if the wife (ex nun) is unwilling to have sex you should just use the maid. Whether the maid wants a sweaty fat German on top of her huffing away is not relevant you see. Just like muhammed and 9 year old girls. And let’s not forget King Henry VIII, I mean, if you can’t murder-divorce your wives and steal all the land and gold of the Catholics and their churches while you murder them for it, what kind of a loving Christian are you?”
Yeah. No. Sola Scriptura is something only brainwashed morons who are too lazy to even think, never mind read about the origins of the Church for 3 minutes can possibly ever believe in.
I'm pretty much happy with the content in the authorised version, if that makes me sola scripture. I'm not lazy, not stupid, and have some knowledge of church history, and wasn't brought up in the church, so I think that probably invalidates your thesis, but I'm always trying to learn more although I find it common to encounter people with zealous opinions which are not supported by scripture science or logic and I've certainly noticed gross contradictions with catholic dogma and the accepted canon, but maybe we need to reject the bible now, is it? What's a Christian anyway?
I will see your "sola scriptura evisceration" and raise you "the Bible isn't the word of God (never was) and the Church is wrong about a LOT but Jesus is still King, regardless". Jesus is the word. The LIVING word, made flesh, lived among us, now ascended to the Father but still dwelling here on earth within the spirit-born believers as the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is just a document that tells the story.
Go ahead and point out any three supposed of these gross “contradictions” with Catholic dogma and accepted canon.
This should be interesting since Catholic dogma is ALL based on the accepted Catholic Bible (all parts included).
And I’ll answer your question and ask you one of my own.
A Christian is someone that follows, believes and lives by the teachings of the magisterium of the Catholic Church to the best of their ability.
Now you tell me what makes someone a Christian according to you.
But don’t forget to tell me at least 3 of your “gross contradictions” too. I’ll wait.
your Protestant ideology of “I interpret as I will and I know better than all the Church fathers put together and I will pretend to know more than all of them AND the Bible because I’m so smart and I also am too dumb to realise ANYTHING I know is thanks to them both in the first place” actually makes you even more absurd than the average Protestant. You are clearly a self-obsessed narcissist pretending to be “humble” by paying lip service to “Jesus is Lord” while presenting yourself as the full and total authority on Christianity. Quite the ego monster eh?
Your position is so obviously wrong it’s not worth arguing about at all. It’s the equivalent of trying to argue about 2+2 being 4 with a toddler throwing a tantrum that’s screaming the answer is “PURPLE!”
Mary, who said of Jesus, "my lord and my saviour", is called by the Catholics the "Queen of Heaven" yet the only bible references to that title refer to a demon. Why do they call her that?
Thank you for demonstrating your absolute lack of historical understanding of the psalms, of the actual gospels and why it really is best you learn them from a Catholic Bible and not one that has been edited by pharisees for 7 centuries before being further abridged by a lustful German.
Mary is hailed as Queen by Elizabeth Ave Maria stems from that.
She is the Queen of heaven because she gave birth to Jesus. And no there is no reference to a queen of heaven being a demon.
I’ll post a graphic of the Hail Mary prayer when I learn how that explains much of this.
If you waste words making personal allegations without explaining why they're true, it doesn't advance your argument, but you might get to feel proud that you won something, which further inures your mind to open and rational argument. Why don't we proceed one step at a time, and genuinely find some agreement at each step? I'm familiar with the Hail Mary prayer, but it establishes nothing if you post that because I don't accept it as authoritative. Mary gave birth to Jesus therefore she is queen of heaven is a complete non sequitur. The Qumran scrolls established a large part of the Bible has been completely un-edited since before Jesus. Coining rude nicknames for influential persons just obscures your argument from others less familiar with your allegations. I don't know what to do with your claim of ignorance about the references to Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah. I presume you read it but are just being obtuse. I know no reference for Elizabeth calling Mary queen. I presume that is in the apocrypha, which I'm overdue to read, I admit, but that still doesn't establish Mary as queen of heaven, since Elizabeth is hardly in a position to crown her. Can you please just calm down, and just pick one thing? Do you really want to have a genuine argument or just appear as if you're winning one without actually taking part?
Mary was called Theotokos, Mother of God, in the first centuries of Christianity and prayers for her intercession can be found in the ancient catacombs. Its hardly a non sequitur unless you've already developed a bias to think so. God didn't need a mother, so the fact that He chose to have one, and not a human father, is endlessly profound. There are many Biblical types of Mary throughout the Old Testament: Eve, the Ark, the Arc, the Queen Mother in the Davidic kingdom... There is a fittingness and completeness to the Incarnation by its perfection of both genders... Jesus was raised by and lived with Mary for thirty years, so much of who He was in His human nature was mirrored from her... Jesus makes Mary the mother of all Christians when He gives her to John at the foot of the cross... Mary is gathered amidst the Apostles when the Holy Spirit comes... Mary is depicted as Mother of the Messiah and cosmic queen (clothed in the sun, standing on the moon, crowned with stars) in the book of Revelation... Without Mary there would be no Christian answer to the pervasive archetype of divine femininity, an archetype that is found in the earliest archaeology, universal to every human tribe, and clearly a much needed representative of the female side of the human psyche. The non sequitur is the Protestant attempt to erase and marginalize the second most important person who ever lived. Of course she is the Queen of Heaven, there could be no other candidate.
Did Mary say "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." or not? Does God have a mother, or is he a pre-eternal uncreated self-existent being? Is every woman in the bible a type for Mary or do you have some method for picking certain ones? Jesus made Mary the mother of John when he made Mary the mother of John at the cross, I would have thought that was obvious. I know how Mary is depicted in Catholic dogma, that doesn't exactly make up an argument, does it? And was that an admission that your faith is some sort of global tribal belief, like with rainbow serpents and turtles holding up the world?! Are you seriously appealing to a "universal human tribal" belief and think that makes your argument stronger?!
1. The appellation queen of heaven derived directly from the gospels. She was greeted by Elizabeth as royalty because John (in her belly) recognised (Jesus in Mary’s belly) as Lord.
2. That is the origin of the very same appellation in Hail Mary. Ave Maria, in Latin. So your rejection of the name Queen of Heaven, is also your direct rejection of the gospel where this is stated.
3. The Dead Sea scrolls have certainly not vindicated the Lutheran evisceration of the Bible. Your implication of the opposite makes you either spectacularly ignorant or intentionally disingenuous. Let us know which.
4. I am extremely calm. What you perceive are insults are in fact mere observations of fact phrased in a manner that is direct for expediency as well as disambiguation. Your being offended or not by it is not relevant if the basis is factual.
Oh and my mistake, I confused Elizabeth with the Angel, so it was a messenger from God that hailed her as royalty.
If you don’t understand that from the Bible you read it may be because unlike Catholics, you have no understanding of the original text and the very accurate translations done into Latin from the originals, which I guess you would know precious little about.
Mary being queen of heaven in NO WAY presumes her to be above Jesus or Jesus not being her Lord. Why you would assume this is something only a Protestant might know I guess, but it certainly isn’t based on Catholicism.
Your diagram refers to the two least credible Gospels; Luke and John. Luke, being written by a disciple of Paul (who was not present during any of Jesus’ actual life, let alone before his birth) and John, which is the most poetic and mystically theosophical gospel (invoking the logos, etc) but not the most historical. So basically what you have is a rote prayer based on tradition, which is itself based on third-hand testimony in Luke and John which were never intended as as historical texts (or to be used as such) in first place. And you’re trying to use that to prove a point about Mary as the Queen of Heaven, whatever that even means. Fallacy, built of fallacy, built on fallacy, built on ... nothing. And all of that stated as though you’re absolutely sure of your correctness, and seemingly without much regard for how your brother will be able to receive it.
The Second Person of the Trinity took flesh in the womb of Mary and was born as her son. So yes, God has a mother now. Mary is created, so not God herself, but redeemed from all sin and worthy of Heaven at the moment of her conception, thus making her metaphysically superior to every other created person.
Only Mary fits the archetypes of the OT because only she carries salvation and God’s presence inside her, like the Arc, the Ark, the Tabernacle, and the Temple. Only she can be the second Eve, because only she was given a choice upon which the death or resurrection of the human race depended. When Jesus calls Mary ‘woman’ instead of ‘mom’ both at the wedding of Cana and at the crucifixion, He is referencing the moment when Adam calls Eve ‘woman’ ‘the mother of all the living’.
As for the queen of heaven phrase in Jeremiah, although it translates the same in English obviously has a very different meaning. He’s not talking about Heaven, the Jews don’t even have the concept yet. He talking about some female idol of the sky. The queen mother (gebiyra), also in Kings and Chronicles in the OT is the phrase that has traditionally pointed to Mary.
His point is essential. 'Blessed among women' is not the same as 'blessed woman', she's clearly being set apart here. Angel's don't interact with humans in such a reverent way at any other point in Scripture. The words to Mary by the angel Gabriel reference the prophecy of Daughter Zion (Zech 9:9 & Joel 2:23-24). The greeting 'full of grace' in the Greek has the implication of never having been without the fullness of grace, i.e. Immaculately Conceived. The 'overshadowing' of the Holy Spirit is again a reference to Mary being the new 'cloud of the presence' or 'arc of the covenant'.
"Redeemed from all sin and worthy of Heaven at the moment of her conception, thus making her metaphysically superior to every other created person." Can you please explain the series of logic back-flips that got you to this conclusion?
I'm following the logic of ancient Catholicism, it's not my logic at all, I just understand what the Church has always taught...
It makes logical sense that God would create a perfect female to match the perfect maleness of Christ. Jesus and Mary are not equal, just as men and women are not equal, but there is an equality of difference in terms of their qualitative superiority to the rest of us. The logic goes back to the greeting of the angel Gabriel, who essentially proclaims that Mary has always been without sin in order to fulfill the task of being God's mother on earth. It does make sense. What doesn't make sense, is God being born into sin or to a sinner; or God not making for Himself the perfect mother He possibly could.
The Queen first of all gives a beauty, honor, and joy to the King. The Queen also minds some important issues that the King might otherwise overlook, and on occasion makes a special plea to the King for favors to vassals and citizens that have gained her favor. In the Church's language, Mary is the highest intercessor of our prayers, and the surest path to Christ Himself. As I said before, Mary also offers a female dimension to the Royal Court of Heaven that I am quite certain some Christians find easier to approach than God Himself. In the queen we gain a certain emotional sympathy that we might find hard to believe if she were not a true woman and a true mother.
Again, appreciate the perspective. Thanks. Let me ask, does this "Royal Family" have any other members? Is there a prince as well, or a princess? Are there Judges or Senators? A court of primary advisors? Is there a Jester? Just asking if this is more of a Metaphorical or Analogical title, or is it literally a King and Queen of the Kingdom situation.
And, i hate to mention this, but isn't the Queen typically the Wife of the King? So, Jesus is married to his mother, logically. Yes?
The Church has a lot to say about the limitations of analogy, but suffice it to say that the analogy comes down to us, not up to God. For example, God is Father more so than my dad is father, even though God the Father does not procreate, He simply creates. Similarly, the sexual dynamics of Heavenly persons surpass our present understanding, but we approach it to a degree when look at the lives of celibate monks and nuns.
Jesus is not married to Mary, to put it directly, and the heavenly queenship is much more than what we would understand by it.
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Who's that, Cole? Her saviour? Now why would she go and want to have one of those?
She still needed to be saved from original sin. It just took place at her conception. Her creation and her salvation are one and the same. But she also acknowledges her solidarity with the rest of humanity, what mother could feel saved while her children run astray?
I'm only taking the logic of Scripture and exercising it on practical questions that the texts do not explicitly cover. The Scriptures never mentioned Jesus taking a bathroom break, but I assume that He did since he was human. I also assume that since He chose to have a mother that He also calls her His mother, and since she is His mother that He would share with her the best He has to offer.
Jesus has a dual nature. Man and God. Clearly if his Godhood had a mother he wouldn't be God anymore, would he? Mary is the mother of the man Christ Jesus, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Right. There is no eliminating the paradox, but its the same paradox all the way through. How can God become man? We just don't get to understand that part. What your saying was actually an ancient heresy that pushed the Church to define the doctrine of Theotokos. At the council of Ephesus 431AD: Mary is a true mother to the person Jesus who dwells in the Godhead for all eternity. Yes, Jesus has a divine nature that is uncreated and a human nature that was created, but the principle of unity is the Person of Christ to whom Mary gave birth and, therefore, Mary is the true mother of God. Otherwise, you make Jesus into two persons and that is heresy.
Men have mothers, Cole. Gods don't. Sure it's a mystery how he did it. It's a mystery how he IS god as well! But obviously, the mother bit goes with the man bit. Surely you understand that part? The bits you don't understand you're obviously not going to be able to explain. So you can hardly expect anyone else to swallow them.
There is only one God, and He can have a mother if He wants to, just like he can take a human nature if He wants to. The evidence seems to be that He did want to, since, well, He did.
But maybe you see now the need for a divine (magisterial) interpretation.
Can you see that you are dividing Jesus into two persons?
You can’t claim to wrap your mortal head around the mysteries of an eternal God. But dividing Jesus into two separate persons seems a lot more dangerous than giving reverence to, and acknowledging the God-given unique blessing of, Mary.
Remember when Jesus said "In order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, first you must study Church history, liturgy and Catholic theology pertaining to the heavenly status of my mommy."
The problem we face here as Catholics is that you’re like a toddler arguing the number 4 is purple.
I’m not insulting you. I’m explaining why it is fruitless for us to even engage. You simply don’t posses the requisite elementary understanding of Christian theology, liturgy and history that makes these questions only a clear indication you’re completely ignorant of too many details to discuss this with you.
I strongly suggest you listen to the entire series by Professor Rachel Fulton Brown on unauthorised dealing with medieval history. It will explain a great deal to you while detailing the absolute absurdity of Sola Scriptura. You really need to at the very least educate yourself in the matter at hand before we can have a meaningful discussion.
As I said, not an insult. Ignorance is curable. By the willing anyway.
Everything we know of what Jesus says is in the book that the Catholic Church collated, promulgated, interpreted, and defended, with the toil and blood of 500 generations. It's not that you have to be a professional historian or theologian. It's really much simpler than all that. We are only asked to trust and obey the tradition handed down to us. If we happen to have the luxury of understanding every step of the logic, than we are living in a time of abundance. But Faith is first, and understanding second. This is why I tend to think our Faith really isn't that similar, because if you don't accept the interpretive authority of the Magisterium you don't have Faith in Christ. Who is Christ without that authority? We can't access Him without the Catholic Church, and the access we have now is only because the Catholic Church gave it to us.