Condemning Nectorianism & defending the title Mother of God.

[Mannyfit75]

if you read my post, there are some typos I made. I like to note that at the time, I was very tired when I wrote it. I look at the old post I wrote down and I had Mother of God written Mother in God. I apologized this typographical error.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Several of you are correct in pointing out the contradictory error in my statement about Mary not being the mother of the “God-part” of Jesus. Please disregard that poorly thought out and incorrect statement.

I reject Nestorianism and I agree with the Catholic Church about Mary having carried in her womb " a divine person — Jesus Christ".

The use of the term “Mother of God” as a primary description of Mary does seem (to me) to ignore the “Human-part” of Jesus. I understand why the term is used though to prevent heresy.
The “Mother of Our Lord” or “Mother of Jesus” or even “Mother of the Son of God” would be more complete descriptions of Mary as I see it.

I think I’ve said enough (too much actually) on this subject.
God Bless.

Catholics do not ignore the human part of Jesus when we call Mary the Mother of God. The statement is incorrect as your first for the same reason: Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity whom became man.

There’s no division between the human part and divine part of Jesus. While these two natures may be distinct, they are united in one Person. Jesus the Person equally possessed each of his natures: both are united in His Personhood.

 

[Damascus]

Its simply understanding the Trinity correctly and then, the lightbulb goes off for the deluded who ignore the reality of the situation. Whatever I say. They have so many other issues wrong its just pointless to go over them all I am convinced. Let them get on with their heresy. I dont have any sympathy for them because they ignore too many things not just one thing.

Heretics will always have an excuse to object to anything.

 

[brkn1]

I see some need to resort to personal attacks to argue their point.
In spite of my error in arguing against the use of the term “Mother of God”, the fact does remain that there is NO such term in the Bible.
Saying that the biblical term “Mother of my Lord” is identical to “Mother of God” is a twisting of the truth. Such tweaking of biblical words is where much of the real heresy comes from.

The term “Mother of God” is a human invention, since it cannot be found in scripture.

Proverbs 30:5,6…Every word of God is pure:he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I see some need to resort to personal attacks to argue their point.
In spite of my error in arguing against the use of the term “Mother of God”, the fact does remain that there is NO such term in the Bible.
Saying that the biblical term “Mother of my Lord” is identical to “Mother of God” is a twisting of the truth. Such tweaking of biblical words is where much of the real heresy comes from.

The term “Mother of God” is a human invention, since it cannot be found in scripture.

Proverbs 30:5,6…Every word of God is pure:he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Do you follow Nuda Scripture? Can you not use reason as well?

How is “Mother of my Lord” not identical to “Mother of God” in this passage?

1. Whom is the mother Elizabeth is refering to?
2. Whom is the Lord?
3. Is the Lord God?

 

[brkn1]

The word “Lord” is more specific about which Person of the Godhead is being referred to than the word “God” is.

You seem to be saying that, if God uses one term “Mother of my Lord”, our human reasoning gives us the right to replace that term with another term, which we then deem to be the better, although biblically changed, title for Mary.

I never heard of Nuda Scripture.

 

[Damascus]

The word “Lord” is more specific about which Person of the Godhead is being referred to than the word “God” is.

You seem to be saying that, if God uses one term “Mother of my Lord”, our human reasoning gives us the right to replace that term with another term, which we then deem to be the better, although biblically changed, title for Mary.

I never heard of Nuda Scripture.

Have you lost the concept of the Trinity?

 

[brkn1]

How can you ask that question about my believing in the Trinity when I used the word “Godhead”?

The apostle Paul wrote much of the New Testament. He made a point of often using the the Divine names of “God the Father” and our “Lord Jesus Christ” together. He was very careful to differentiate the Godhead this way.

There is probably no time in any of Paul’s epistles where the words “God” and “Lord” are used together where a plural adjective or verb is used to describe either God or Lord. I see this as proof that the words should not be indiscriminately exchanged with each other, even though the Father and Jesus are both God and Lord.

 

[Victorious]

The term “Mother of God” is a human invention, since it cannot be found in scripture.

Sigh. If you’re not careful, I’m going to inundate you with all the Scriptures that refute sola scriptura. I’m liable to do it anyway, even though I’ve done it elsewhere in several places. If “Mother of God” is a human invention, then so is the entire canon of the New Testament. You can search the Bible high and low for a divinely inspired table of contents, and you’ll come up empty.

Since it is true that Jesus is one Person who is both fully divine and fully human, it follows that it is true that Mary is the Mother of God. Period! Even if the exact formulation is not present in Scripture (which I can’t say one way or the other, not being versed in the original language of the Gospels).

P.S. The term “godhead” does not necessarily mean “Trinity.”

 

[brkn1]

I think we are all pretty well settled in how we approach biblical terminology and I think it would be a waste of time to go further.

I will give one last example of why I feel it’s best to stay with biblical terms:
If the words “Lord” and “God” are so easily interchangeable, then why does the unbiblical term “Son of the Lord” sound so confusing?

This thread has helped me to understand better why you use the term “Mother of God”. At least we agree on condemning Nestorianism and also on the Three Persons in One Godhead, which the basic understanding of is vital to our faith.

 

[Damascus]

Define the Trinity and then we shall see your heresy exposed.

Plain and simple.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Define the Trinity and then we shall see your heresy exposed.

Plain and simple.

In all due, respect, brkn1’s belief is heresy whether he admits it or not. Early Christians believed that Mary, is the Mother of God (the Son, not Father, or the Holy Spirit).

This is a belief that is basic Christian dogma. I do believe he lacks the understanding of the Trinity.

I know Protestants have objections to other belief that we Catholic profess, but I find it difficult to believe that they deny Mary, the title “Mother of God.” It supports Jesus’ divinity, his divine Person, as the Second Person of the Trinity. Mary rightly can be called Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and Mother of God. Jesus is God, and therefore, the title supports that Jesus is “I AM.”

 

[brkn1]

No problem!

There is but one only, living and true God, who is infinite in all perfections of being and power.
In the unity of the infinitely perfect Godhead, there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotton of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Eternally means without beginning or end.

I’m sure you will find heresy in the above as you prophesied, Damascus.
I will be on a business trip for nine days, but I will also be taking with me the memory of your wonderful Catholic spirit.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No problem!

There is but one only, living and true God, who is infinite in all perfections of being and power.
In the unity of the infinitely perfect Godhead, there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotton of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

The Church and many of the faithful agrees with you on that there is only One God, just as we profess in the Nicene Creed.

Eternally means without beginning or end.

I’m sure you will find heresy in the above as you prophesied, Damascus.
I will be on a business trip for nine days, but I will also be taking with me the memory of your wonderful Catholic spirit.

I’ll let Damascus answer since you did address him.

 

[Veritas41]

I didn’t see anything in brkn1’s post that suggested heresy or lack of understanding of the Trinity, just a reluctance to ascribe the title of “Mother of God” to Mary.

 

[Damascus]

No problem!

There is but one only, living and true God, who is infinite in all perfections of being and power.
In the unity of the infinitely perfect Godhead, there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotton of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Eternally means without beginning or end.

I’m sure you will find heresy in the above as you prophesied, Damascus.
I will be on a business trip for nine days, but I will also be taking with me the memory of your wonderful Catholic spirit.

Do so! I am not offended by Protestant thinking! I was one!!! Till I woke up.

You defined nothing…

That is what you believe?

Not much. I will pray for you.

 

[Damascus]

I didn’t see anything in brkn1’s post that suggested heresy or lack of understanding of the Trinity, just a reluctance to ascribe the title of “Mother of God” to Mary.

Who is God?

Are you kidding me here???

Yes indeed it is heresy! Are you awake??

 

[brkn1]

Hi Damascus,

I thank you for the prayers. That was the short version of what I believe about the Trinity. I certainly admit that I do not fully understand the mystery of the Trinity and I would appreciate anything you could explain that corrects the error of what I have described as my belief on the subject. Thank you. brkn1

 

[Damascus]

Hi Damascus,

I thank you for the prayers. That was the short version of what I believe about the Trinity. I certainly admit that I do not fully understand the mystery of the Trinity and I would appreciate anything you could explain that corrects the error of what I have described as my belief on the subject. Thank you. brkn1

I was there once, and dont think I am unkind here, but- please hit the search button and get back to me- I am fighting heresy all over this board all the time, and not that I dont care- how about you visit the apologetics and see for yourself how much heresy is floating around on the very basic theological ABC’s…

I was where you are now- yet I Knocked—

only you can say if you did–I can not judge. You need to read and …

PM me if you like. I dont understand how you are wrapped up in this when I had “bigger fish to fry” in my mind with the CC…

 

[Veritas41]

Who is God?

Are you kidding me here???

Yes indeed it is heresy! Are you awake??

In brkn1’s posts I responded too, I didn’t see him question whether Jesus was divine or whether God existed as a Trinity of Persons. He seems to understand Jesus is both fully God and fully man and has eternally existed as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The only thing he took issue with was whether Mary should be called “Mother of God” (and whether Mary was considered by Jesus to be especially blessed because of her divine maternity) because he perceived it to imply Mary had something to do with Christ’s divinity or she pre-existed God somehow, which are common misconceptions among Protestants. Even though the Protestant Reformers accepted that title for Mary, modern Protestantism is so far removed from even its original founders that in the 20 years I was an evangelical Protestant, I never heard Mary referred to by that title – she was always called the Mother of Jesus (when she was talked about at all, which was rarely), and all the churches I belonged to had a correct understanding of the Trinity and of Christ. Protestants who hold to traditional basic Christian teaching believe the same things we do about God but they don’t always possess a complete understanding of all the implications of those teachings.