How do Catholics explain 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:26?

[SenorSalsa]

That doesn’t answer the fact that Jesus existed before Mary.
She was not before Christ, the second person of the trinity. The Holy Spirit used her body to give Christ his mortality. To be born like any of us into this World. But Christ was before Mary, therefore she’s not the literal “Mother of God”.

Paul makes it plain that Jesus, who’s existed before Mary, was given a human body, so he could die.
“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me” Hebrews 10:5

Notice that Paul says, ‘when he cometh into the world’. That means he’s just using her body, give birth to a body that could hide Jesus’ divinity in humanity. But in the verse Paul admits his pre-existence.

Even John says in the beginning was the Word, and that Word came and dwelled among us. That Word is Jesus, who was before the world existed.

I get very nervous every time I read you saying that Jesus’ body hid his divinity. Neither hid the other, but rather through a miracle of faith the coexisted, such that Jesus was 100% Human, 100% Divine, the Hypostatic Union as someone above just mentioned. From birth to death he was human. from birth to death he was divine, at no time was he only one or the other. And it is impossible to separate the two, and because Mary, unarguably, gave birth to the Humanity of Jesus, and we cannot, from the moment of his Incarnation, separate the Humanity from the Divinity, we must say that she gave birth to his Divinity. and therefore gave birth to God. Again it is easier to see it in its original Theotokos, God-Bearer, which gives more insight to the fact that she bore forth God, but did not Create him.

We must remember that the Birth and the Creation are two different things. Jesus was never created, but about 2000 years ago, he was born. That is why we speak of his Incarnation and not Conception. He was Incarnated, or became man, but he was never Conceived, or created.

 

[mikeledes]

That makes Joseph the father of God as well then, and like I said, anyone along Mary’s side would be grandfathers and mothers of God as well. The idea doesn’t make sense.

A body was prepared for Jesus, so he could be born in the world like anyone else, and suffer just like anyone else, so he could be our example.
His pre-existence only shows that he did not exists through Mary, he already existed. In other words, the Holy Spirit placed Jesus (God) in Mary’s womb so he could be born in human flesh. That doesn’t make her the mother of God.

That only makes her the birth giver of the Body that Jesus (God) encased himself in.
Jesus’ accusers were doing everything possible to prove that because he was born of a woman, he was not pre-existent. But He is pre-existent, therefore Mary, is not literally the ‘mother of God’, only the birth giver to the body that Jesus used to hide his Eternal Divinity.

Mother’s do not give birth to bodies, they give birth to persons. Mary gave birth to God the Son and hence she is the Mother of God. To deny that would be to adhere to a form of the Nestorian heresy:

**Nestorianism emphasized the dual natures of Christ. Patriarch Nestorius tried to answer a question considered unsolved: “How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall”. To solve that he taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos who existed before Mary and indeed before time itself. The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn’t the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was “more” human for having the Logos and not “less”. Consequently, Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for the “Christ-Bearer” and not Theotokos, Greek for the “God-Bearer.” Cyril argued that Nestorianism split Jesus in half and denied that he was both human and divine. This was essentially a Christological controversy.

At the urging of its president, Cyril of Alexandria, the Council denounced Nestorius’ teaching as erroneous and decreed that Jesus was one person, not two separate people: complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body. The Virgin Mary was to be called Theotokos because she bore and gave birth to God as a man. This council was originally disputed, however, because Cyril started the council prematurely, without all the legates and bishops present. This caused the Eastern bishops, led by John of Antioch, to hold a competing council where they disputed Cyril’s council. Over time, Cyril would eventually triumph. This did not resolve the debate over the union of the two natures of Christ, and related issues were debated at the Council of Chalcedon.

The Council of Ephesus declared it “unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa”,[1] It did not specify whether it meant the Nicene Creed as adopted by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, or as added to and modified by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.**

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Arglaze]

Arglaze,
Is your beef with the title Mother of God because Jesus is eternal and Mary is not?
Catholics also believe Jesus is eternally God, existing before the universe. We do not believe Mary is the reason Jesus came into existence, as he is eternal and Mary was only human. She was however, a very special human, specifically chosen to bear Jesus. I’m not sure why you disagree with Mother of God unless it is that you believe Catholics think Jesus was not eternal or that Mary caused him to exist (which is not representative of our beliefs).

Good point. My beef is with the idea that because she gave birth to our Lord in human flesh. People use that to place her in some sort of position where Jesus has to obey what his earthly mother tells him.

And also the fact that they say the immaculate conception, after the Bible already teaches that all have sinned. The only 2 people in this world that were sinless at any moment in body and actions were Adam and Eve, not even Jesus. Jesus was born in a sinful body, however he did not commit any sin. Being born in that sinful body is what gave him the ability to die.

Mary is being given a position of authority over God by saying she’s the mother, queen mother, etc. When she was just as sinful as you and me, and yet God found her righteous, both her and Joseph. I don’t have a beef with Mary, my beef is with those who idolize her with things that the Scriptures nor the words of Jesus supports.

 

[SenorSalsa]

That makes Joseph the father of God as well then, and like I said, anyone along Mary’s side would be grandfathers and mothers of God as well. The idea doesn’t make sense.

A body was prepared for Jesus, so he could be born in the world like anyone else, and suffer just like anyone else, so he could be our example.
His pre-existence only shows that he did not exists through Mary, he already existed. In other words, the Holy Spirit placed Jesus (God) in Mary’s womb so he could be born in human flesh. That doesn’t make her the mother of God.

That only makes her the birth giver of the Body that Jesus (God) encased himself in.
Jesus’ accusers were doing everything possible to prove that because he was born of a woman, he was not pre-existent. But He is pre-existent, therefore Mary, is not literally the ‘mother of God’, only the birth giver to the body that Jesus used to hide his Eternal Divinity.

Your statement about Joseph is wrong. He is the Step-father of Jesus, however having no part in his creation or birth, he cannot be Father.

As far as Mary’s line goes, they certainly are his ancestors. How else does he fulfill prophecies such as Isaiah 11:1-3 “And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots…” or statements like that at the start of Matthew “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham.”

 

[adstrinity]

And who said anything about Mary pre-existing Christ? Mary is mother because she carried Jesus/ God the Son in her womb for nine months, she gave birth to Him, she nursed Him, and she raised Him.

God Bless,
Michael

That makes Joseph the father of God as well then, and like I said, anyone along Mary’s side would be grandfathers and mothers of God as well. The idea doesn’t make sense.

No it doesn’t. Jesus doesn’t have any of Joseph’s genetic material. St. Joachim is Jesus’ maternal grandfather, St. Anne is Jesus’ maternal grandmother. Jesus can trace his lineage back. It happens in the Bible. Why does this offend you?

 

[HamtramckSteve]

If you deny Mary is the mother of God, then you are really denying the Jesus is God, because as you state, Mary is the birth giver of the body.

You can’t separate the body from its essence, and you can’t separate Jesus from the “body he encased himself in.”

That body you dimiss so cavalierly is the body that suffered and died for your sins, the body that brought you eternal life (God willing) and the body you will see at the Second Coming.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Who wrote those ‘Marian dogmas’? Jesus? Peter? Paul?

1. Mary is the mother of God? Is that even a serious statement? Then that makes Abraham, Rahab the whore, David, and all of them God’s grandfathers and grandmothers? Oh!! I see, its trying to say that because the Holy Spirit used Mary’s womb to hide Jesus Divinity in mortality, that makes her the mother of God, even though its not mentioned in scripture that Jesus called Mary ‘Mother’. Well, fact is, Jesus existed before Mary was even made.

Who wrote the Marian Dogmas" ? Well the very same person who inspired Peter and Paul to write their revelations - The Holy Spirit.
It’s very Catholic as well as very biblical to finally admit that not everything God has revealed is written in the bible and much is also conveyed through Apostolic Tradition and teaching.

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Hang around here long enough and we just might suceed in converting you to the One True Catholic Apostolic Faith!

1. Mary was conceived without sin (Immaculate Conception)? Where in the Bible is that? That’s a direct contradiction to
   “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” Galatians 3:22 &
   “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23

Same place as mentioned in John 21:25 above and in
John 15:26
When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

1. Mary remained a virgin her entire life (Perpetual Virginity)? Where in the Bible is that? Whoever wrote that must have been spying on Mary and Joseph every night. Common people, you don’t get married so you can have a virgin wife, you marry to form a family. Even the people that saw Jesus knew that he had brothers and sisters.
   “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” Matthew 13:55-56

Where does it say in the bible that Mary was a virgin?
Is 7:14 The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Mt 1:18-25 Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
Lk 1:26-27 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Nicene Creed (325), Constantinopolitan Creed (381)
… Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human.

Further the perpetual virginity was a established belief in the early church: Athanasius (Alexandria, 293 - 373) , Epiphanius (Palestine, 315? - 403). Jerome (Stridon, present day Slovenia, 345? - 419) , Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354 - 430) ,
Cyril (Alexandria, 376 - 444) and others.

Do you doubt the power of God to incarnate Himself but unable to keep the vessel untouched and pure?

Where in the bible does it say Mary had conjugal relations with any man? Please don’t bear false witness nor add to scripture your mere conjectures of man.

Whoever wrote that must have been spying every night? Do you imagine there was someone spying on Jesus every hour of the day to confirm that Jesus never sinned? Are you here to provide eye witness testimony that you saw Mary commit a sin or claim personal knowledge that she was not a virgin? Since you were not alive 2000 years ago I don’t think you would pass muster as an eye witness. Do you have something substantial to offer as evidence? Everyone with some biblical understanding knows the term “brother” does not always refer to blood brother “brother arglaze”. Is that too difficult to understand? Can you point to a lexicon in the Aramaic language that means “cousin” brother? You can’t because all of Jesus’ cousins were called “brothers” for lack of a differentiating word.

1. Mary was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life? Where is that in the Bible? I think the correct statement was: “we assume Mary went to heaven at the end of her earthly life.”
   Seriously now, Mary is no where mentioned after Jesus gave John to care for Mary, who even at his moment of death called her ‘woman’, not ‘mother’, and at the time that she was praying with Jesus’ brothers and sisters and his disciples later in Acts I think.
   Because Jesus has only 1 Father and no Mother, he’s eternal, Mary isn’t.
   Jesus is pre-historic, Mary isn’t.
   Jesus is pre-creation, Mary isn’t.

Therefore God used her womb to give Jesus a mortality so He could die for you and me. But she is not the literally speaking ‘mother of God’, that’s a false doctrine. Mary and Joseph were his parents, but not their Father and Mother in the sense the ‘marian dogma’ says.

Psalm 119:105 “Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” not the ‘Marian dogma’ which are words of uninspired men, whoever they are.

You seem to have a lot of loathing and disrespect for Mary. Catholics have never claimed Mary is divine. Mary is expressed as “Mother of God” in the sense that she birthed Jesus Son of Man. If you have a problem with that you better take it up with God because that’s the way it is whether you like the expression or not. And why do you insist on the bible as the sole source of revelation when the bible itself tells us (see above) that it does NOT contain all that has been revealed? You can’t put God between the bindings of a published book - and certainly not the Protestant Bible that is a tithe short of what we know to be inspired and quoted by Jesus and the apostles in the NT. In any sense your dogmatic teaching is severely lacking and just a strawman.

James

 

[sola_scriptura]

What typology is “obvious”? That the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah is Our Lady? You seem to need anything Catholic to be wrong, even if it isn’t.

How can Mary NOT be the “Ark of the Covenant”?

What was in the Ark:

The word of God in the tables of the law.
Jesus is the Word made flesh.

Aaron’s rod that budded in affirmation of his priesthood.
Jesus is our great high priest.

The last of the manna.
Jesus is the bread of life.

Even a Protestant should no problem whatever with that. I thought that typology was quite poignant when I was a Protestant.

Indeed I agree with all you stated – except your conclusion.

For instance – the priests were never contained within the Ark – they sprinkled the sacrificial blood on its mercy seat.

The proper typology for the Ark (if you insist on one) would be God and Christ – certainly not Mary. For instance the acacia wood could be viewed as signifying the humanity of Christ, while the gold His divinity. The blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the mercy seat – this signified a blood offering to God (as the gold signified divinity and the seat was the throne of God). Was blood offered to Mary or to God? The blood sacrifice of Christ was like the blood offering sprinkled on the mercy seat – accept Jesus offered one sacrifice for all sins (so after Christ the doors to the sanctuary would be forever closed – no more annual atonement rituals). With a change in priesthood comes a change in law.

Jesus was able to offer the perfect sacrifice because He never sinned, unlike the Levite priests (who had to first offer a sacrifice for their own sins – before the atonement ritual).

Indeed the Ark contained within it the Jar and some of the manna from heaven (given to the Jews while in the desert during the Exodus period). It also contained the rod of Aaron and the tablets containing the word of God given to Moses. It was lined with gold within and without, but wood stood between the gold lining. This is a “type” for Jesus. Divinity without (He was both God and man while alive here on earth), born of flesh (the wood), and God within.

The fact is you guys insist on a role for Mary in the economy of salvation – when simply stated one does not exist!

Mary might be legitimately viewed in the queen mother role – however, that role was temporal and did not extend beyond that. Indeed at the wedding feast in Cana when Christ referred to His mother as “woman” many commentators point out that such a reference was a Jewish idiom signifying a rebuke or the way a man would address a subordinate female (not the way a son would address his mother). Hence, the queen mother role fits well within this dichotomy (since it would be appropriate for a king to address a queen as “woman”). Moreover, at the wedding feast Mary did serve in a helper role (there are many other typologies in that wedding feast – for example turning the water into wine, the bad wine being served first and the good wine being served last, etc. – but those aren’t relevant to this issue).

The RCC typologies of Mary also fail to recognize the disengagement that occurred between the temporal family of Jesus & His spiritual family (most profoundly expressed at Mark 3:31-35 and its parallel verses).

If you would like to try & make a case for Mary as Ark I’m willing to listen? So far I remain unconvinced (and in fact I view it as one of the poorest typologies I’ve ever heard). I think Mariology was first drawn up by Irenaeus because of his poor understanding of Christology. Then the slippery slope began – and has magnified over time because of the fallacy of infallibility.

 

[Arglaze]

Mother’s do not give birth to bodies, they give birth to persons. Mary gave birth to God the Son and hence she is the Mother of God. To deny that would be to adhere to a form of the Nestorian heresy:

**Nestorianism emphasized the dual natures of Christ. Patriarch Nestorius tried to answer a question considered unsolved: “How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall”. To solve that he taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos who existed before Mary and indeed before time itself. The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn’t the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was “more” human for having the Logos and not “less”. Consequently, Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for the “Christ-Bearer” and not Theotokos, Greek for the “God-Bearer.” Cyril argued that Nestorianism split Jesus in half and denied that he was both human and divine. This was essentially a Christological controversy.

At the urging of its president, Cyril of Alexandria, the Council denounced Nestorius’ teaching as erroneous and decreed that Jesus was one person, not two separate people: complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body. The Virgin Mary was to be called Theotokos because she bore and gave birth to God as a man. This council was originally disputed, however, because Cyril started the council prematurely, without all the legates and bishops present. This caused the Eastern bishops, led by John of Antioch, to hold a competing council where they disputed Cyril’s council. Over time, Cyril would eventually triumph. This did not resolve the debate over the union of the two natures of Christ, and related issues were debated at the Council of Chalcedon.

The Council of Ephesus declared it “unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa”,[1] It did not specify whether it meant the Nicene Creed as adopted by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, or as added to and modified by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.**

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus

God Bless,
Michael

I never said that Christ wasn’t fully human. In fact, Christ was fully human and fully divine. That’s how he could die.
So I don’t see your point. The statement “Mary is the Mother” of God is a statement that is fabricated and concluded. Not something that Jesus said, or something that the scriptures support.
Mary gave birth to ‘that Holy Thing’, she’s not the mother of God, since Jesus existed before her. To say that Jesus came into existence because of her, would be to contradict your colleagues, and the Bible as well.

“A body was prepared for him” like Paul says, so he could become fully human, and yet he’s still be fully God. I don’t see the contradiction or a statement that takes away one from the other.
People give more attention to Mary than what Jesus or the Apostles give her.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

I never said that Christ wasn’t fully human. In fact, Christ was fully human and fully divine. That’s how he could die.
So I don’t see your point.

If you deny Mary is the mother of God, then you are really denying the Jesus is God, because as you state, Mary is the birth giver of the body.

You can’t separate the body from its essence, and you can’t separate Jesus from the “body he encased himself in.”

That body you dimiss so cavalierly is the body that suffered and died for your sins, the body that brought you eternal life (God willing) and the body you will see at the Second Coming.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

Indeed I agree with all you stated – except your conclusion.

For instance – the priests were never contained within the Ark – they sprinkled the sacrificial blood on its mercy seat.

I don’t follow your meaning. Where do you get the idea that anybody said the OT priests were in the OT Ark?

 

[Arglaze]

We must remember that the Birth and the Creation are two different things. Jesus was never created, but about 2000 years ago, he was born. That is why we speak of his Incarnation and not Conception. He was Incarnated, or became man, but he was never Conceived, or created.

And this that you’ve said is the sum of how Jesus became fully human and he is still fully God, though in human flesh. I don’t see the contradiction. Incarnation, key word.

 

[sola_scriptura]

If you deny Mary is the mother of God, then you are really denying the Jesus is God, because as you state, Mary is the birth giver of the body.

That’s ridiculous – more backwards theology. Mary was the mother of the man, Christ Jesus. However, God has no creator, He was not born – hence God has no mother.

You can’t separate the body from its essence, and you can’t separate Jesus from the “body he encased himself in.”

That body you dimiss so cavalierly is the body that suffered and died for your sins, the body that brought you eternal life (God willing) and the body you will see at the Second Coming.

Exegesis gone wild!

You fail to understand the meaning of Jesus’ flesh. It was from Mary that Jesus inherits His humanity not His divinity. Not only that but Jesus inherits His identity as a Jew from Mary. So the flesh – or Israel of the flesh, which Jesus must sacrifice in order to abolish the law and eliminate the enmity between God and man and between man and man (i.e. Jew and gentile) – see Ephesians 2:14-18).

 

[Arglaze]

No it doesn’t. Jesus doesn’t have any of Joseph’s genetic material. St. Joachim is Jesus’ maternal grandfather, St. Anne is Jesus’ maternal grandmother. Jesus can trace his lineage back. It happens in the Bible. Why does this offend you?

Wow, now we’re gonna talk about genetic materials? ok, please explain how the Holy Spirit composed Jesus’ DNA with the mix of Mary’s XX chromosomes and God’s XY chromosomes.

The answer is simple, you don’t know, therefore, don’t even go there. For your sake and for mine as well. All we need to know is that she gave birth to the ‘body prepared for him’ so He could become fully human and still be fully God.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I don’t follow your meaning. Where do you get the idea that anybody said the OT priests were in the OT Ark?

You mentioned the fact that Jesus is our High Priest (referencing Hebrews 7). I merely questioned why that fact would be relevant in drawing a typology between Mary & the Ark.

Now – will you deal with my entire post or is that it? I’m pretty sure no one will address my typology – better to just ignore the truth.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I never said that Christ wasn’t fully human. In fact, Christ was fully human and fully divine. That’s how he could die.
So I don’t see your point. The statement “Mary is the Mother” of God is a statement that is fabricated and concluded. Not something that Jesus said, or something that the scriptures support.
Mary gave birth to ‘that Holy Thing’, she’s not the mother of God, since Jesus existed before her. To say that Jesus came into existence because of her, would be to contradict your colleagues, and the Bible as well.

“A body was prepared for him” like Paul says, so he could become fully human, and yet he’s still be fully God. I don’t see the contradiction or a statement that takes away one from the other.
People give more attention to Mary than what Jesus or the Apostles give her.

I am coming back to this post to point out your quote from Paul. How else would we prepare for God but to make sure that everything is spotless. Why do we not do profane things in church, why do we plate things with gold silver and gems. Because we want to give the closest thing to perfection we can give for God, so why would not the Womb of Mary be prepared the same way, by being made perfect(read: sinless) so that it could be a proper home for Jesus for his first 9 months as a Human?

and then, to respond to your last post about incarnation, that still makes Mary Mother, which is defined in the dictionary as: A woman in relation to a child to whom she has given birth.

What part of that definition does not fit Mary and Jesus? It was her blood and DNA that gave Jesus his personhood, and it was her that gave birth to Him

 

[mikeledes]

I never said that Christ wasn’t fully human. In fact, Christ was fully human and fully divine. That’s how he could die.
So I don’t see your point. The statement “Mary is the Mother” of God is a statement that is fabricated and concluded. Not something that Jesus said, or something that the scriptures support.
Mary gave birth to ‘that Holy Thing’, she’s not the mother of God, since Jesus existed before her. To say that Jesus came into existence because of her, would be to contradict your colleagues, and the Bible as well.

“A body was prepared for him” like Paul says, so he could become fully human, and yet he’s still be fully God. I don’t see the contradiction or a statement that takes away one from the other.
People give more attention to Mary than what Jesus or the Apostles give her.

Like I said, the purpose of the title “Mother of God” is to affirm the truth of the Hypostatic Union. The problem is that you assume “motherhood” means that the mother pre-existed the son. That is not always the case. There is God the Father and Jesus is the Son. Does this mean that because Jesus is the Son of the Father, that the Father pre-existed the Son?

Mary is the mother of Jesus - and hence God because Jesus is God - because she carried Him in her womb for nine months, gave birth to Him, nursed Him, and raised Him and he was subject to her while He was a child, not because she preexisted Him or created Him:

Luke 2:51

51And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.

And Elizabeth, under (name removed by moderator)siration of the Holy Spirit, could not be any clearer:

Luke 1:42-43

42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you amon women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43"And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?

Mother of My Lord, not “mother of my Lord’s body.” Like I said, women do not give birth to bodies, they give birth to persons and Mary gave birth to the person of Christ who assumed a human nature within her womb.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Arglaze]

If you deny Mary is the mother of God, then you are really denying the Jesus is God, because as you state, Mary is the birth giver of the body.

You can’t separate the body from its essence, and you can’t separate Jesus from the “body he encased himself in.”

That body you dimiss so cavalierly is the body that suffered and died for your sins, the body that brought you eternal life (God willing) and the body you will see at the Second Coming.

How does saying that Mary is not the Mother of God denying that Jesus is God? I’m the one defending Jesus’ pre-existence VS those who want to limit him to post Mary.
"A body’ is what the Holy Spirit prepared for Jesus to hide his Divinity in mortality. And what I mean by that statement is that God’s glory (the Divine) was within the mortal body. That’s all I’m saying, I’m not separating one from the other, in fact, its being united. 100% God & 100% human.

 

[adstrinity]

Wow, now we’re gonna talk about genetic materials? ok, please explain how the Holy Spirit composed Jesus’ DNA with the mix of Mary’s XX chromosomes and God’s XY chromosomes.

The answer is simple, you don’t know, therefore, don’t even go there. For your sake and for mine as well. All we need to know is that she gave birth to the ‘body prepared for him’ so He could become fully human and still be fully God.

Hostility does not become you. You didn’t answer the question.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Like I said, the purpose of the title “Mother of God” is to affirm the truth of the Hypostatic Union. The problem is that you assume “motherhood” means that the mother pre-existed the son. That is not always the case. There is God the Father and Jesus is the Son. Does this mean that because Jesus is the Son of the Father, that the Father pre-existed the Son?

Mary is the mother of Jesus - and hence God because Jesus is God - because she carried Him in her womb for nine months, gave birth to Him, nursed Him, and raised Him and he was subject to her while He was a child, not because she preexisted Him or created Him:

Luke 2:51

51And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.

And Elizabeth, under (name removed by moderator)siration of the Holy Spirit, could not be any clearer:

Luke 1:42-43

42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you amon women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43"And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?

Mother of My Lord, not “mother of my Lord’s body.” Like I said, women do not give birth to bodies, they give birth to persons and Mary gave birth to the person of Christ who assumed a human nature within her womb.

God Bless,
Michael

Don’t bother I have posted those and some by Angels several times now, and they have been ignored every time