Any non catholic: what is your opinion on Mary the Mother of God?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

maybe

I hardly see how parsing this point matters in the Christian faith. But, you are free to care about this as you see fit!

For the reasons that Jon explained. Denying Theotokos can, and has, led to denying the divinity of Christ. Although on the surface it appears to be a title referring to Mary it is really telling us Who Christ is. When I hear that Mary is the Mother of God, I don’t think about Mary I think about her Son. What does that make her Son if she is the Mother of God?

Whatever that means.

Christians cannot disagree with Who Christ is. Christ is a divine being, He is God. We know who His mother is, Mary. Mary is the Mother of God because Christ **is **God. Since this is the case, something we Christians cannot disagree with, Mary is then the Mother of God. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God can raise questions as to Who her Son is.

But I respect your faith. I just don’t see the value in arguing over it much. But then again, I am not a believer and maybe it is worth fighting over.

Truth is always worth fighting for

God bless you

 

[annaevers]

“Woman, what have I to do with you…?”

“In order for us to understand Jesus’ seeming overreaction, we need to understand the phrase “what have you to do with me?” Some commentators claim that this represents Jesus’ brusque reproach of His mother. However, that doesn’t not hold up to careful study.

First, we should note that in the end, Jesus does fulfill the request He infers from Mary’s observation. If He intended to reproach her, he surely would not have followed His reproach by complying with her request.

The decisive evidence against the reproach reading, however, comes from the alleged reproach itself. “What have you to do with me?” as a common Hebrew and Greek idiom in Jesus’ day. It is found in several other places in the Old and New Testaments, as well as in sources outside the Bible. In all the other occurrences, it certainly does not signify reproach or disrespect. Quite the opposite: it conveys respect and even deference. Consider Luke 8:28, when the line is used verbatim by a man possessed by a devil. It is the demon who puts those words in the possessed man’s mouth, and he means them to acknowledge Jesus’ authority over both the man and the demon. “I beseech you, no not torment me,” he continues, thereby affirming that he must carry out whatever Jesus commands.

At Cana, Jesus defers to His mother, though she never commands Him. She, in turn, merely tells the servants, “Do whatever He tells you? (Jn2:5L)"

From “Hail, Holy Queen” - Scott Hahn (page 35-36)

 

[elvisman]

People that speak lies are liars, aren’t they?

Absolutely WRONG. I said that she is not the mother of God because she did NOT create Him. Thank you for setting your misunderstanding straight.

Indeed people that speak lies are liars.
Here are your own words in Post #71**:**

Mary did not create God for God was never created as you are well aware. In that sense, as biological mothers and fathers create the ovum and sperm which ‘creates’ the new baby, Mary, IMO, is not the mother of God. …

I didn’t claim that you said she created God. I said that you are claiming that she create his HUMAN nature. She didn’t create his humanity, nor does ANY mother create their child. GOD does.
Get that straight.

makes her more like a surrogate.

I already explained to you what a surrogate is, but you just don’t seem to get it. I would LOVE to get you in a room full of mothers and watch you tell them that they are nothing but a bunch of surrogates . . .

Since you aren’t understanding the definition - at this point, I can only tell you to look it up.

 

[Contarini]

maybe

But while I was a Christian I did not understand all the fuss over Mary. And I (and my church) sure did not believe that Joseph never had sex with his wife Mary. I just don’t see how such views (divine vessel of Mary, chaste Mary) have anything to do with the message and salvation of Christ. They seem, preeminently, the obsessive parsings of the human mind.

Depends on what you think the “message and salvation of Christ” is. Your church probably did not have a fully orthodox understanding of that message–hence the failure to see how Mary is relevant.

Christ’s salvation is the deification of human nature, not just the forgiveness of the sins of individuals.

Edwin

 

[larryort]

speaking tongue and cheek-like. I wouldn’t want to stand before Jesus, and have to defend not honoring His Mom, the Queen Mother. Whether I got into heaven before or after that, it would still be embarassing, and extremely stressful.

I am not Catholic. My response about Mary is she was blessed and I mean blessed as in not to her credit, but unto God’s. To the corrupt mind this may seem as if I do not revere her. But in fact I revere God over her and believe that she would agree with me. She is honored to be the Mother of the Christ to her and to I. She does not depise me for recieving honor from me because she is the vessel through which Christ was formed, that is in her womb. She would not accept adoration for herself and it is not because she is being modest, but she does not feel she can take any credit and she would say so. But she does not hate those who think they must adore her more than any Mother deserves, but yet she desires you all who do so would focus on her Son who gave up His life as the lamb of God. For if you truly love Mary do not let her sons death be in vain.
In my conscience, my Image of God and therefore the Christ is not one where he would judge anyone based on whether they honored his Mother since that would be carnal. He commands us to love our enemies however and that is Spiritual.

 

[larryort]

I was not taught by any alleged Catholic teaching, whether or not the term Catholic means universal or Roman Catholic. So it may be my perception of Catholicism is a bit cloudy due to semantics inherent in words, or other causes of misunderstanding. I was taught by the Holy Spirit who resides in me according to my discilpeship in Christ. I recognize the term Church only as the assembly of those who also share in this same Spirit. Therefore I do not subscribe to any discernment of the bread and wine that counts others assembling in his name as invalid or outside. This would be a carnal view. I cannot say in whom the Holy Spirit resides except to say they do God’s works. Nor do I say, “I am of Peter or Paul”, for I recognize that both these apostles of God would say “do not be followers of us, but be followers of Christ”. This is why I cannot count myself Roman Catholic according to the doctrine of this institution as I understand them. How do you respond to this?

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed

people that speak lies are liars.
Here are your own words in Post #71**:**

You took these quotes out of their context. Are you doing this to distort what I’m saying? The first statement was because you called me a heretic (telling a lie makes one a liar, therefore speaking herecy makes one a heretic).

**I didn’t **claim that you said she created God. I said that you are claiming that she create his HUMAN nature. She didn’t create his humanity, nor does ANY mother create their child. GOD does.
Get that straight.

What’s His nature? Devine which is God’s and only God’s nature. Seems you are playing with words. She DID NOT create His Nature.

 

[JonNC]

For the reasons that Jon explained. Denying Theotokos can, and has, led to denying the divinity of Christ. Although on the surface it appears to be a title referring to Mary it is really telling us Who Christ is. When I hear that Mary is the Mother of God, I don’t think about Mary I think about her Son. What does that make her Son if she is the Mother of God?

Christians cannot disagree with Who Christ is. Christ is a divine being, He is God. We know who His mother is, Mary. Mary is the Mother of God because Christ **is **God. Since this is the case, something we Christians cannot disagree with, Mary is then the Mother of God. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God can raise questions as to Who her Son is.

Truth is always worth fighting for

God bless you

Larkin,
R_C has said better here what I was trying to convey.

Jon

 

[GreggAlvarez]

[What’s His nature? Devine which is God’s and only God’s nature. Seems you are playing with words. She DID NOT create His Nature.

Did we say she created His nature? No, she is the Mother of Jesus. “Jesus” includes everything He is.

The Bible brings up a good point.

“And the Word became flesh.”

That flesh was the Word and the Word was flesh. Who did He get that flesh from? More precisely, who did He get that sinless flesh from? (To kill two birds with one stone.)

You have to say Mary. There is no way around it. He had to get that sinless flesh from somewhere.

Now, as far as the mother part goes, that should go without saying. “Mother of God” does not denote ontological origins as some seem to think. “Mother of God” just says that Jesus is both Man (Mother) and God (God). Or that Jesus is both Son of Man (Mother) and Son of God (God).

As we have been saying for the past oh… few CENTURIES is that Marian doctrine are centered on Christ.

Believe Catholics on Catholic doctrine.

If you disagree with the correct definition of OUR doctrine, then perhaps you have something we can work with. If you disagree with what the CATHOLIC doctrine is NOT, well, then there is nothing we can do because you misunderstand it. This should be filed under the “needless to say” category; obviously, I am wrong, as usual.
[/quote]

 

[Dokimas]

Did we say she created His nature?

I doubt it; I sure hope not.

No, she is the Mother of Jesus. “Jesus” includes everything He is

.

Surrogate maybe.

The Bible brings up a good point.

“And the Word became flesh.”

Great point by the Bible.

That flesh was the Word and the Word was flesh. Who did He get that flesh from? More precisely, who did He get that sinless flesh from? (To kill two birds with one stone.)

We don’t know exactly how God produce the Flesh of Jesus.

You have to say Mary. There is no way around it. He had to get that sinless flesh from somewhere.

Mary could not give Him sinless flesh: all flesh but the flesh of Jesus has sin, so Mary could not give Him sinless flesh.

Believe Catholics on Catholic doctrine.

I don’t doubt you know your catholic doctrine.

If you disagree with the correct definition, then perhaps you have something we can work with. If you disagree with what the doctrine is NOT, well, then there is nothing we can do because you misunderstand it.

You can judge for yourself.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I was not taught by any alleged Catholic teaching, whether or not the term Catholic means universal or Roman Catholic. So it may be my perception of Catholicism is a bit cloudy due to semantics inherent in words, or other causes of misunderstanding. I was taught by the Holy Spirit who resides in me according to my discilpeship in Christ. I recognize the term Church only as the assembly of those who also share in this same Spirit. Therefore I do not subscribe to any discernment of the bread and wine that counts others assembling in his name as invalid or outside. This would be a carnal view. I cannot say in whom the Holy Spirit resides except to say they do God’s works… How do you respond to this?

Easy… You already have your mind set. Nothing will change your mind. Not even Truth itself. You have subjective opinions and that is clear. You live in Christ and do not even want to attempt to honestly discern what is true from what is not, then I question whether or not you are in Christ. I am not saying that a non-Catholic is dishonest for being non-Catholic. The fact that I have to make that disclaimer should shed light on your subjectivity.

Nor do I say, “I am of Peter or Paul”, for I recognize that both these apostles of God would say “do not be followers of us, but be followers of Christ”. This is why I cannot count myself Roman Catholic according to the doctrine of this institution as I understand them.

Well, we are followers of Christ. “The Holy Spirit and the Bride [Church] say, ‘Come.’” Revelations 22:17. You obviously ignore that call or just say a downright, “No”.

I am sorry you do not think we are followers of Christ based on a misconception that just because we believe something an institution teaches.

God bless and listen to the Holy Spirit and Christ’s Church, His Bride, say, “Come”.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I doubt it; I sure hope not.

It is not hope if you already know the object of that hope.

Surrogate maybe.

Seriously? How so?

Great point by the Bible.

We don’t know exactly how God produce the Flesh of Jesus.

The fact that He was born of a woman should shed light one how He did this. Otherwise, the “virgin” part is superfluous and even the credibility of Scriptures is at stake.

Mary could not give Him sinless flesh: all flesh but the flesh of Jesus has sin, so Mary could not give Him sinless flesh.

Well, this is certainly debatable according to the Bible. Perhaps another thread?

I don’t doubt you know your catholic doctrine.

Yeah… I am not telling you to believe the doctrine. I am just telling you that you should disagree with what the doctrine states, not what it does not state. Kind of like non-Catholics correcting Catholics on what Sola Scriptura actually is before making any argument for it.

What do you not agree with? There are only three things in “Mother of God” to disagree with:

1. “Mother” - Christ is Son of Man and therefore fully human.
2. “God” - Christ is Son of God and therefore fully divine.
3. “Of” - Both Christ’s Humanity and Divinity are inseparable (as per hypostatic union I think)

Pick one and we can discuss.

You can judge for yourself.

Sorry about that. Let us get to specifics. Those above 3 are the only parts of “Mother of God” that are able to be argued.

 

[Contarini]

You took these quotes out of their context. Are you doing this to distort what I’m saying? The first statement was because you called me a heretic (telling a lie makes one a liar, therefore speaking herecy makes one a heretic).

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Jesus has two natures.

Then the Holy Trinity has two natures contained within it.

But, as is taught in Christianity, the Holy Trinity contains One Nature and Three Persons.

 

[Contarini]

Then the Holy Trinity has two natures contained within it.

Depends on what you mean. One of the Persons of the Trinity has two natures. If the word “Trinity” is used to refer to the three Persons, then yes, Christ’s humanity would be part of that, I think. I’d like to hear from someone better versed in Trinitarian theology than myself, though. These are deep waters.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the divine Nature, then obviously the divine Nature does not include the human nature.

But, as is taught in Christianity, the Holy Trinity contains One Nature and Three Persons.

One of whom has a human nature. What I said. . . . .

 

[RyanBlack]

Then the Holy Trinity has two natures contained within it.

But, as is taught in Christianity, the Holy Trinity contains One Nature and Three Persons.

Wrong. The Holy Trinity indeed has one Nature in three persons. The Church also teaches that Christ is one person with two natures (divine and human). This is basic Christology that any 1st semester theology student would not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then the Holy Trinity has two natures contained within it.

But, as is taught in Christianity, the Holy Trinity contains One Nature and Three Persons.

No, Marys humanity brings the human nature to the birth and combines the two natures in pregnancy. God supplies the Divine Nature through the Word became Flesh

Jesus has two natures in the Hypostatic Union.

 

[RyanBlack]

Depends on what you mean. One of the Persons of the Trinity has two natures. If the word “Trinity” is used to refer to the three Persons, then yes, Christ’s humanity would be part of that, I think. I’d like to hear from someone better versed in Trinitarian theology than myself, though. These are deep waters.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the divine Nature, then obviously the divine Nature does not include the human nature.

One of whom has a human nature. What I said. . . . .

Edwin,

I don’t know that I’m better versed in Trinitarian theology than you (I did take Geoffrey Wainwright’s course on the Trinity), but I find it deeply problematic to conclude from traditional Christology that there is more than one nature “in the Trinity.” For one, to accept this seems to me to admit change into the Godhead. Admitting that God is subject to change runs counter to traditional Trinitarian teaching. Furthermore, it is only God the Word who has taken upon Himself human nature.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Depends on what you mean. One of the Persons of the Trinity has two natures. If the word “Trinity” is used to refer to the three Persons, then yes, Christ’s humanity would be part of that, I think. I’d like to hear from someone better versed in Trinitarian theology than myself, though. These are deep waters.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the divine Nature, then obviously the divine Nature does not include the human nature.

One of whom has a human nature. What I said. . . . .

I completely agree. But, if we are too agree that His humanity and divinity are eternally inseparable, then He is both God AND Man. We use one to speak of a distinct characteristic of Him. But with that said, we are to not use one as separated from the other, just as distinct from the other. Kind of like to use “first-born from the dead” instead of “Resurrection”. They are talking about the same thing, just as distinct characteristics. But, they are not to be separated and isolated from each other when discussing it.

Did that clarify my point?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Wrong. The Holy Trinity indeed has one Nature in three persons. The Church also teaches that Christ is one person with two natures (divine and human). This is basic Christology that any 1st semester theology student would not.

Apparently, I needed to be more clear of explanation. I was not wrong. I just used it in a way that was ill-defined.

Fortunately for me, I am not a 1st semester theology student. Far from it.

No need for the insults people. I agree with the Church that He has two natures. I was just emphasizing their inseparability.