Condemning Nectorianism & defending the title Mother of God.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
brkn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
My point is not that is not correct to say that Jesus is Lord, but not God. (I do not think that’s what you believe.) In order to be Lord, Jesus Christ must be God.
 
Hi Damascus,

Since you are so bored, I thought maybe you could finally get around to at least attempting to explain any errors you claim to see in my definition of the Trinity, which you demanded from me.
Things are not so “plain and simple” when you have to back up your bogus accusation that my definition is “nothing”, which puts YOU in the heretic catagory, since the Catholic Church is in agreement with me there.

Back to the topic of the use of non-biblical terms for the Virgin Mary, I notice the term “Queen of Heaven” often used in this forum.
This term was put forth in 1954 by Pope Pius XII in his (AD CAELI REGINA).
You should open your Bible to (Jeremiah 44:17, 18, 19, 25).
You have a biblical term in “queen of heaven” this time, but it is not a very nice biblical term.
 
brkn1 said:
Hi Damascus,

Since you are so bored, I thought maybe you could finally get around to at least attempting to explain any errors you claim to see in my definition of the Trinity, which you demanded from me.
Things are not so “plain and simple” when you have to back up your bogus accusation that my definition is “nothing”, which puts YOU in the heretic catagory, since the Catholic Church is in agreement with me there.

Back to the topic of the use of non-biblical terms for the Virgin Mary, I notice the term “Queen of Heaven” often used in this forum.
This term was put forth in 1954 by Pope Pius XII in his (AD CAELI REGINA).
You should open your Bible to (Jeremiah 44:17, 18, 19, 25).
You have a biblical term in “queen of heaven” this time, but it is not a very nice biblical term.
Click to expand...
Personally I prefer Theotokos. look it up.
 
Of course, This last response of mine need not have happened had the poster in question had been able to tell me why Jesus Christ is not God.
 
You will never be able to get me to tell you that Jesus Christ is not both fully God and fully Man.

I looked up Theotokos on a Catholic appologetics site.

My summary would be: Catholics believe that Mary, the Mother of God was assumed into Heaven and now reigns there as Queen of Heaven.
Mary is above all angels and saints in Heaven, and only below God in status.

I think you are right in preferring the title Theotokos for Mary.
The Queen of Heaven title makes me wince a little when I think of (Jeremiah 44:17, 18, 19, 25).
 
brkn1 said:
You will never be able to get me to tell you that Jesus Christ is not both fully God and fully Man.

I looked up Theotokos on a Catholic appologetics site.

My summary would be: Catholics believe that Mary, the Mother of God was assumed into Heaven and now reigns there as Queen of Heaven.
Mary is above all angels and saints in Heaven, and only below God in status.

I think you are right in preferring the title Theotokos for Mary.
The Queen of Heaven title makes me wince a little when I think of (Jeremiah 44:17, 18, 19, 25).
Click to expand...
Wince all you want to. You at least now get part of it. Dont worry, there is more to learn.

Theotokos. Its totally proper whether you like it or not. Otherwise deny the Trinity my friend.
 
The Queen of Heaven title makes me wince a little when I think of (Jeremiah 44:17, 18, 19, 25).
Click to expand...
I’ll admit I didn’t look up the verses because I figured they were the ones that talk about things that the pagans did for their queen of heaven, such as (if I recall) making bread for her and pouring water or wine or something onto the ground?

Either way the Catholic mindset on this phrase is easily explained. Just because there was a false queen of heaven, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a real Queen of Heaven, anymore than (as John Martignoni is fond of saying) the fact that the pagans had a false god means that we can’t call our God, God.

How do we know there is a queen of heaven at all? Revelation 12: “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery” (Rev. 12:1–2).

Catholics believe this is Mary. She’s in Heaven and she has a crown, and she’s the mother of the king (Jesus) so she is a queen. Her title of queen is really the Queen Mother. Again, this title is in reference to her relation to Jesus, not her own right.

BTW I can see sort of where you’re coming from on the Mother of God issue. I don’t agree with your belief that it implies she’s mother of the Father and Holy Spirit, but I can see why you might.
 
Veritas41 said:
An analogy that comes to mind is an artist and his work. When we go to a museum and see a beautiful painting, sculpture or other piece of art, we will praise and admire it for its beauty, and in doing so we’re really praising the artist because he’s the one responsible for making the piece of art beautiful. He created it – it didn’t pop out of thin air. Just like if we visit a friend’s home that is beautifully decorated and we praise how beautiful it looks, the friend isn’t insulted as if we were somehow ignoring her but rather she is pleased because she knows that when we praise the beauty of her home we’re praising her talent and ability that made the home beautiful.
Click to expand...
I like that analogy a lot. 🙂
 
brkn1 said:
I think too much unnecessary emphasis has been put on Mary’s title.
Mary was greatly honoured and blessed when God chose her to be the mother of His Son.
But Jesus pointed out, in correction to those who overly dwell on Mary’s honor and blessing, that the greater blessing goes to those " that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:28)

On the other hand, we can never put enough emphasis on the title, glory, and honor of the Gift of Salvation (Our Lord Jesus Christ) Who was and is a far greater blessing to Mary and to any of us who accept His Gift.
Click to expand...

All true 🙂​

Equally, it is essential to be clear that she is the Mother of God, & in what sense. What is important is not simply how people feel about her, but this: that it is from her, by the grace & humility of God, that God became one of us, that He became man, “truly, really, and substantially”.

It is because His Flesh, Blood, & Bone is that of One Who is in every way fully man as we are men - sin alone excepted - that He is qualified to be our Mediator: whatever else is true about His mediation, certainly that is. If He is not “one flesh” with us, He is not true man, & “we arte still in our sins”. That He is man, is because He is flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone. She performed for Him all that a mother does for her child. His human nature has a source - a human being. She is that human being. So if mothers are true mothers, even though they cannot give their children the spirit of life, she is His Mother.

The title can be misunderstood - what cannot ? Misunderstanding does not make it wrong - it does mean that it needs to be explained; just like anything else. ##
 
brkn1 said:
I think too much unnecessary emphasis has been put on Mary’s title.
Mary was greatly honoured and blessed when God chose her to be the mother of His Son.
But Jesus pointed out, in correction to those who overly dwell on Mary’s honor and blessing, that the greater blessing goes to those " that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:28)

On the other hand, we can never put enough emphasis on the title, glory, and honor of the Gift of Salvation (Our Lord Jesus Christ) Who was and is a far greater blessing to Mary and to any of us who accept His Gift.
Click to expand...

All true 🙂​

Equally, it is essential to be clear that she is the Mother of God, & in what sense. What is important is not simply how people feel about her, but this: that it is from her, by the grace & humility of God, that God became one of us, that He became man, “truly, really, and substantially”.

It is because His Flesh, Blood, & Bone is that of One Who is in every way fully man as we are men - sin alone excepted - that He is qualified to be our Mediator: whatever else is true about His mediation, certainly that is. If He is not “one flesh” with us, He is not true man, & “we arte still in our sins”. That He is man, is because He is flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone. She performed for Him all that a mother does for her child. His human nature has a source - a human being. She is that human being. So if mothers are true mothers, even though they cannot give their children the spirit of life, she is His Mother.

The title can be misunderstood - what cannot ? Misunderstanding does not make it wrong - it does mean that it needs to be explained; just like anything else. ##
 
brkn1 said:
I know and believe that Jesus Christ is a single divine person of the Trinity.
Jesus was born into this world throught the Holy Spirit as Mary’s Son.

One of the reasons that I can not accept the use of the term “Mother of God” is that it incorrectly implies that Jesus did not already exist as God before He was even conceived. As much as you may try to say otherwise, the implication is there.
Click to expand...

Not as used by the Councils - & it is that sense that it is to be understood. It’s not a free-floating title - it has a very precise meaning; just like (say) “Son of God”. That Muslims insist on attributing a wrong sense to it, does not make it any less valid; so with this.​

“Mother of God” has further implications about the Godhead possibly having a mother, which is nonsense.
Click to expand...

It could imply that - but why must it ? No Christian who knows that God is God & that Mary, for all her graces & privileges, is His creature, should have any trouble with it.​

Because (as you point out) it is indeed nonsense to attribute a mother to the Godhead, it ought to be reasonably clear that the title does not have that meaning. A term that seems to be nonsense, yet is defended, may very well not mean what a nonsensical understanding of it might suggest. ##
The terms: “Mother of Jesus” or “Mother of our Lord” are more accurate and less prone to a wrong interpretation.
Click to expand...

1. The trouble with “Mother of Jesus” is that it does not say enough - it could be taken to mean that He is no more than we are 🙂​

“Mother of our Lord” is not restricted in meaning - it too could be taken to suggest she is the mother of the Blessed Trinity. ##
 
brkn1 said:
Hi Damascus,

Since you are so bored, I thought maybe you could finally get around to at least attempting to explain any errors you claim to see in my definition of the Trinity, which you demanded from me.
Things are not so “plain and simple” when you have to back up your bogus accusation that my definition is “nothing”, which puts YOU in the heretic catagory, since the Catholic Church is in agreement with me there.

Back to the topic of the use of non-biblical terms for the Virgin Mary, I notice the term “Queen of Heaven” often used in this forum.
This term was put forth in 1954 by Pope Pius XII in his (AD CAELI REGINA).
You should open your Bible to (Jeremiah 44:17, 18, 19, 25).
You have a biblical term in “queen of heaven” this time, but it is not a very nice biblical term.
Click to expand...
You need to dig a little deeper in the OT to find the biblical basis for Mary’s title as “Queen of heaven” --it’s perfectly biblical and has nothing to do with the pagan goddess mentioned in Jeremiah. Jesus fulfilled the Davidic covenant (Acts 2:29-31). He is the promised King who would reign over all for eternity. In the OT, the *mother *of the King was Queen. See 1 Kings 2:12-21 and Jeremiah 13:18. Jesus is King, Mary, His mother, is Queen.
 
Veritas41 said:
You need to dig a little deeper in the OT to find the biblical basis for Mary’s title as “Queen of heaven” --it’s perfectly biblical and has nothing to do with the pagan goddess mentioned in Jeremiah. Jesus fulfilled the Davidic covenant (Acts 2:29-31). He is the promised King who would reign over all for eternity. In the OT, the *mother *of the King was Queen. See 1 Kings 2:12-21 and Jeremiah 13:18. Jesus is King, Mary, His mother, is Queen.
Click to expand...
Bathsheba is called the mother of Solomon and the king’s mother, but not the queen in your first example. Her petition to King Solomon for Adonijah was denied with the resulting death of Adonijah, so this is not a good example as I see it.

The other example in Jeremiah 13:18 is also not that good of an example, since the king and queen are warned to humble themselves before God, or their honor and glory (principalities) will come down.

I have trouble seeing God sharing His Honor and Glory with anyone in heaven. As for the final status of Mary or any other saint, I think Jesus said it best: “…what is that to thee? follow thou me.”
 
brkn1 said:
Bathsheba is called the mother of Solomon and the king’s mother, but not the queen in your first example. Her petition to King Solomon for Adonijah was denied with the resulting death of Adonijah, so this is not a good example as I see it.

The other example in Jeremiah 13:18 is also not that good of an example, since the king and queen are warned to humble themselves before God, or their honor and glory (principalities) will come down.

I have trouble seeing God sharing His Honor and Glory with anyone in heaven. As for the final status of Mary or any other saint, I think Jesus said it best: “…what is that to thee? follow thou me.”
Click to expand...
Here’s the note on that passage from my Protestant NIV Study Bible:

1:11 *Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother. *The queen mother held an important and influential position in the royal court (see 2:19, 15:13, 2 Kings 10:13, 2 Chronicles 15:16)

You may have trouble with the idea of God sharing His glory with anyone, but that is completely unscriptural:

2 Thessalonians 2:14, "He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

We share in Christ’s sufferings (Philippians 3:10, 1 Peter 4:13, Colossians 1:24)

We share in His priesthood (1 Peter 2:5, 9 ; Rev. 5:10)

We share in His Kingship (2 Tim. 2:12, Rev 20:5, Rev 22:3-5)

Christ graciously permits us to share with Him in many things, including His glory
 
Hi Veritas41,

You are mistaking the Honor and Glory of God for other forms of glory that God gives His creatures and creation.
All good things reflect God’s glory, however (“but”) there is only One True God that actually is the True and Only Possessor of All Glory deserving worship.

(Isaiah 42:8) “I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”

The Glory and Honor of God that I am talking about is the only glory worthy of being worshipped and praised in complete adoration. No creature or thing has any part in receiving such worship or praise.
 
brkn1 said:
Hi Veritas41,

You are mistaking the Honor and Glory of God for other forms of glory that God gives His creatures and creation.
All good things reflect God’s glory, however (“but”) there is only One True God that actually is the True and Only Possessor of All Glory deserving worship.
Can you please give some Scriptural basis for your idea of “other forms of glory”? Yes, whatever glory we receive comes from God, just like whatever goodness or holiness we have comes from Him – and I don’t see how sharing that glory or any of His other attributes somehow makes Him less or exalts His creatures over Himself.
1 Peter 5:1, "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to come." 5:10, "And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ;"
**
(Isaiah 42:8) “I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”

The Glory and Honor of God that I am talking about is the only glory worthy of being worshipped and praised in complete adoration. No creature or thing has any part in receiving such worship or praise.
The verse in Isaiah is referring to false gods. Of course, God will not give or share His glory with what is false. But He does (as I have cited from Scripture), *share *His glory with those who are in Christ. And you confuse praise with worship. Mary doesn’t receive worship from us – she is praised and honored for her obedience to God, her holiness, humility, etc, all of which are the results of God’s grace so in praising Mary we are praising God’s workmanship because God is the source of Mary’s goodness and praiseworthiness. God alone is worshipped, and in offering rightful praise to His creatures and creation, we are praising and glorifying God.

Proverbs 31:28-31, "Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her. . .charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting, but a *a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. . .*Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise."
Click to expand...
 
Victorious said:
).

P.S. The term “godhead” does not necessarily mean “Trinity.”
Click to expand...
That is true – I have heard Mormons use the term “Godhead” to refer to their three distinct gods.

Another point for brkn1 – the word “Bible” doesn’t appear in the Bible, but does that make it “unbiblical” in the sense of being *against *Holy Scripture or contradictory to it?
 
This is little off the immediate topic, but regarding the title “Mother of God” for Mary, please read what Calvin and Luther (inventor and original adherent of “sola scriptura”) had to say about this title for Mary:

“In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given to her that no one can grasp them. . .Not only was Mary the mother of Him who was born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” Martin Luther (Weimer, The Works of Luther, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7 p. 572)

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor. . .Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because of the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God." John Calvin(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35)

Calvin and Luther are basically saying what we Catholic posters have been saying on this thread – will you accuse them of “worshipping” Mary or trying to exalt her over God or inventing unbiblical teachings about her?
 
The most important form of glory is God’s Glory and this form of glory can never be shared with us, because it is Who God IS in the manifestation of His essential character or qualities.

All creation was made so that we could first recognize God’s Glory and then respond to it in worshipful praise, honor, thanksgiving, and obedience. The very faith that we need to be saved requires this response to God.

God’s Glory in the O.T. was partially shown visibly by a fiery or glowing cloud and great acts. In the N.T., Jesus Christ was the visible Glory of God in His Being, words, acts, and transfiguration.

All other good forms of glory in man and creation are only a reflection of God’s Glory given to us by God without our merit lest we boast (vainglory). The praise, honor, and admiration directed at that form of glory must not go past a certain line or it intrudes into God’s territory of worshipful praise etc.

Man has no business determining the status of any of God’s saints. If Jesus said that it was not His call as to who should sit on either His right hand or left hand, then where does any man or group of men presume to come up with any such decision on a saint’s status in Heaven?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top