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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SIA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
By the way that “mother my Lord” is not the same translation as “Mother of God”. Two different things. I will accept, Mother of the Lord, just like there are several references to the “Brothers and Sisters of the Lord”, which were also born of Mary’s womb. That doesn’t make them the Brothers and Sisters of God.
Lord is a title that’s very open to discussion while God is not the same. The scriptures do not say Mary is the Mother of God.

Also that doesn’t give her some special position in respect to the salvation of men aside from giving birth.

And someone please answer regarding the other points on that Immaculate conception, and the rest of the Marian dogmas on the points that I presented, unless they are been ignored for lack of evidence.
 
  1. Mary could not be the mother of God. God always was and has no beginning. Mary had a natural birth as a natural human.
  2. Scripture does not tell us that Mary was conceived without sin. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that Mary could not have been conceived without sin because of the Scriptures telling us that Mary rejoiced in God her savior. St. Thomas Aquinas is canonized saint in the RCC and I don’t believe anybody posting here is.
  3. Again, Scripture doesn’t say anything about Mary remaining a virgin. It in fact tells us that she had other children besides Jesus and says nothing to the contrary that Mary led a normal married life with Joseph.
  4. Scripture tells us of Enoch being assumed into Heaven body and spirit but never anything about Mary.
As you can see clearly, the Mary of the Catholic church is a far different Mary than the Mary in Scripture.
FIRST, We HONOR the Blessed Virgin, not WORSHIP her as we do her Son. To those who teach other Christians without the proper understanding of the Catholic Universal Church and criticize making false judgments I put this thought to them. I, in my humanly imperfect way, must reflect on this in a manner consistent with a person who honored his own mother, knowing according to the ten commandments as well as the word of Jesus Himself, all of us are to honor our mother and father.

If our Lord Jesus were to stand before each of us in regard to this, I am quite confident of His displeasure. Isn’t it realistic to believe that our Lord may voice Himself in a manner such as this?

…How DARE you express a denial of honor showing disrespect to My mother whom I Myself loved, honored and respected from the beginning. The woman so blessed by My Heavenly Father to be chosen from all human kind as my mother and who’s very blood I share. My mother, who my Apostles loved and respected as their own in my absence until she rejoined me in my Father’s house. You, who show honor to women for being the mothers of your fallen one’s, your men so blessed from Heaven with their God given talents in sports, military, peace making and alike. Yet you refuse to show honor to this Blessed Virgin who birthed me? …As though less due honor and respect than those you pay honor to… Continue to deny My mother of due respect and honor, mocking and judging others for doing so and learn the path you choose. For the honor showed to My mother will never be as deep as what I hold for her but what you can and should offer in her honor is reflective of even more Honor and Worship to Me…

To explain it simply, the Catholic faith does not worship the Blessed Virgin but we certainly do honor Her with the respect befitting the Holy Mother of Jesus Christ. She is at times referred to as the “Queen of Heaven” based on recorded history and The Old Testament of The Holy Bible, which attests to the fact that the mother of a king held the seat of Queen and sat at his right hand with the highest position of influence to the king. Jesus is the King of Heaven. The blood of the Blessed Virgin flowed through the veins of our Lord just as the Blood of our Lord flowed through the veins of His Mother during Her pregnancy. As Jesus Christ is Her Son and the King of Heaven according to Scripture, and in testament to the fact that He brought all things of the Old Testament to fulfillment, to contradict Her position as the Queen of Heaven would be to contradict the word of our heavenly Father in the Old Testament itself. And do we not honor the mothers of our fallen soldiers, policeman and others? Of course we do. She is at times referred to as our “Blessed Mother” since our Lord as is attested to in scripture proclaimed her as the Mother of His disciples. As Jesus is God through the Father, we also at times refer to Her as the Mother of God. All references supported through scripture in the one true original Holy bible.

Show how these things are wrong.
 
By the way that “mother my Lord” is not the same translation as “Mother of God”. Two different things. I will accept, Mother of the Lord, just like there are several references to the “Brothers and Sisters of the Lord”, which were also born of Mary’s womb. That doesn’t make them the Brothers and Sisters of God.
Lord is a title that’s very open to discussion while God is not the same. The scriptures do not say Mary is the Mother of God.

Also that doesn’t give her some special position in respect to the salvation of men aside from giving birth.

And someone please answer regarding the other points on that Immaculate conception, and the rest of the Marian dogmas on the points that I presented, unless they are been ignored for lack of evidence.
To deny that Mother of Lord means Mother of God as well is to deny that Jesus the Lord is God. How about when Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and My God”. if Mary gave birth to Thomas’ Lord, she must have, transitively, given birth(though not created) to Thomas’ God

Please feel free to explain how the title “Lord” is up for discussion, because it is pretty clear to me.

What points about the immaculate conception?

I already explained why it would make sense for Mary to be sinless, such that “a body could be prepared” or whatever your quote from Paul was. its only a page back or so.

there is also this i found in the CA library to explain the all have sinned’
"But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
 
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?
My apologies, I didn’t answer the question. And I’m not being hostile, I’m just saying that getting into the genetics of Jesus’ incarnation is not something that either of us knows, therefore, rather than God into territory that God has not told us to do, its safer for both of us to stay away from that.
To answer your question, I’m not offended that Jesus’ had in the flesh parents, grandmothers, cousins (John the Baptist), and other relatives.

My being offended comes when people use that to say that Mary is the Mother of God as if she gave Jesus his existence, when the Bible clearly states that He was pre-existent. That the Holy Spirit used Mary for the incarnation of Christ, I don’t have a problem with that. That Christ is the Son of God, and God, I’m fine with that.

What I’m not fine with is putting Mary in a position such as Mother of God. Call her the Mother of the Lord if you want, but not the Mother of God. God is the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, lets not separate them.
 
By the way that “mother my Lord” is not the same translation as “Mother of God”. Two different things. I will accept, Mother of the Lord, just like there are several references to the “Brothers and Sisters of the Lord”, which were also born of Mary’s womb. That doesn’t make them the Brothers and Sisters of God.
Lord is a title that’s very open to discussion while God is not the same. The scriptures do not say Mary is the Mother of God.

Also that doesn’t give her some special position in respect to the salvation of men aside from giving birth.

And someone please answer regarding the other points on that Immaculate conception, and the rest of the Marian dogmas on the points that I presented, unless they are been ignored for lack of evidence.
So you accept that Mary is the mother of a title (Lord), but not the mother of the One who bore that title?

God Bless,
Michael
 
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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
Hello! here are the other points ignored.

And to answer to that previous comment, the title Lord is up for discussion, if you equate the title “Lord” with God, then that makes all the other “lords” in the OT (i.e. David) equal to God.

Most of the “Lord” references are used to avoid the use of the name of God, “Jehovah” or “I am”. Therefore, although the term “Lord” is used in many places to replace the title of “Jehovah” it doesn’t equate the word “God” or “Jehovah” in all the contexts they are mentioned. Lord can be many things.

And like I said before, if you say Mary is the Mother of God, you’re saying she’s the Mother of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because God is the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Lets not separate them.
 
And Jesus is God.

Where did I say that Mary is the source of Jesus’s divinity?
By the Title Mother of God, you’re saying that.
God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Don’t separate them.

Now, if you want to say, Mother of our Lord. I’ll take that 🙂
 
Hello! here are the other points ignored.

And to answer to that previous comment, the title Lord is up for discussion, if you equate the title “Lord” with God, then that makes all the other “lords” in the OT (i.e. David) equal to God.

Most of the “Lord” references are used to avoid the use of the name of God, “Jehovah” or “I am”. Therefore, although the term “Lord” is used in many places to replace the title of “Jehovah” it doesn’t equate the word “God” or “Jehovah” in all the contexts they are mentioned. Lord can be many things.

And like I said before, if you say Mary is the Mother of God, you’re saying she’s the Mother of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because God is the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Lets not separate them.
:confused: So in Jesus’s case “Lord” does not refer to the fact that He is God?

God Bless,
Michael
 
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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
Arglaze, this is exhausting. All of your objections were thrashed out very thoroughly and definitively in the year 431 A.D. at the Council of Ephesus. Why not take this up with a Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican or Baptist? ALL of those denominations hold to the teaching that Mary is “Mother of God.” R. C. Sproul, the Presbyterian apologist, defends this beautifully. I don’t have link, but his web site is Ligonier Ministries. Hank Hanegraaf, aka “The Bible Answer Man” also defends this teaching vigorously. He might have something on his web site, Equip.org.
 
By the Title Mother of God, you’re saying that.
God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Don’t separate them.

Now, if you want to say, Mother of our Lord. I’ll take that 🙂
When you say Jesus is God, are you saying Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

God bless,
Michael
 
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).
We do not believe Jesus existed before the Universe. Jesus, the incarnate Lord became incarnate in time. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity existed “before the universe.” Jesus did not.
 
Hello! here are the other points ignored.

And to answer to that previous comment, the title Lord is up for discussion, if you equate the title “Lord” with God, then that makes all the other “lords” in the OT (i.e. David) equal to God.

Most of the “Lord” references are used to avoid the use of the name of God, “Jehovah” or “I am”. Therefore, although the term “Lord” is used in many places to replace the title of “Jehovah” it doesn’t equate the word “God” or “Jehovah” in all the contexts they are mentioned. Lord can be many things.

And like I said before, if you say Mary is the Mother of God, you’re saying she’s the Mother of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because God is the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Lets not separate them.
ummm…when is David ever called Lord? Give me any scriptures you want that use the word Lord other than refering to God and I will show you that to be Mother of Lord must mean Mother of God. It is my assumption that at any time when the word Lord is used for someone other than God it is most certainly used in a different context, and most likely a different word altogether.

While the Trinity may all be God, they are also all individually 100% God. It does not take all 3 to equal God
 
"But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
I don’t see Paul mentioning any exception, not even Jesus. If you study Romans, the concept is that everyone born after the fall are born in sinful flesh.

There are several people in the scriptures that did not commit sin. Enoch, Jesus, maybe John the Baptist that I know off. That doesn’t make their bodies sinless.
Sinful bodies can die, and that’s what Jesus got from Mary, a sinful body, just like everyone else.
 
And Jesus is God.
Yes of course – however, to say Mary was the mother of God, if we wish to be technical, is a somewhat misleading statement.

Jesus was both God and man while here on earth. Mary was the mother of the “man” portion of Christ. She did not “mother” God since God is infinite (as is Jesus) and has no creator.

Does this make any sense to you?
Where did I say that Mary is the source of Jesus’s divinity?
RCC typology almost acts as if Mary played a role in the perfection of Jesus.

They think there had to be a gradual procession or a “step up” to perfection – finally culminating in Christ. They cannot understand that Jesus could be separated from sin solely through His own perfection even though He was born of the same flesh as we are.

This springs from the idea that we can somehow excel in the flesh & are not really totally depraved.

The idea is that if Mary somehow made a few perhaps minor mistakes in life (that may have even been sinful) then it would somehow taint Jesus – or His flesh. However, the fact is flesh cannot be untainted. It always dies, it always feels pain, it always bleeds, and devoid of the Spirit it will always sin.

Jesus is the story of God & the Spirit overcoming flesh. Jesus was God within and without – but was also flesh. Jesus was a degree separated from sin because He was God and the Spirit overcame the flesh – not because of any perfection inherent in His flesh.

Not only was there no need for Mary to be any more or less perfect than her contemporaries – but indeed the purpose of Jesus becoming flesh in the first place abrogates such an idea. Hence, RCC (and to a lesser degree EOC) Mariology represents an utter failure to properly understand Christology.
 
to say “While the Trinity may all be God, they are also all individually 100% God. It does not take all 3 to equal God”.

if you are correct, and Mary birthed Jesus, she gave birth to God.
 
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.
Scripture tells us that in his youth, Jesus was obedient to his parents. At Cana, Mary tells the servants to “do whatever he tells you.” A few minutes later, there is wine in the jars.
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.
Jesus born in a sinful body? That would make Jesus “less” than Adam. This is too complex for the time I have now.
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.
“Authority over God?” Do WE have “authority over God” when we pray and he responds?
 
My apologies, I didn’t answer the question. And I’m not being hostile, I’m just saying that getting into the genetics of Jesus’ incarnation is not something that either of us knows, therefore, rather than God into territory that God has not told us to do, its safer for both of us to stay away from that.
To answer your question, I’m not offended that Jesus’ had in the flesh parents, grandmothers, cousins (John the Baptist), and other relatives.

My being offended comes when people use that to say that Mary is the Mother of God as if she gave Jesus his existence, when the Bible clearly states that He was pre-existent. That the Holy Spirit used Mary for the incarnation of Christ, I don’t have a problem with that. That Christ is the Son of God, and God, I’m fine with that.

What I’m not fine with is putting Mary in a position such as Mother of God. Call her the Mother of the Lord if you want, but not the Mother of God. God is the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, lets not separate them.
“As if” is your understanding, not ours. We know when we say Mary is Mother of God that Jesus is God and Mary is not. We know that God is infinite and Mary is finite. You are assuming a definition we do not adhere to and have explained to correct. You are insisting this is what we are saying and pushing your understanding on us. This is not how we believe and I resent you twisting our beliefs. If you cannot accept Mary as Mother of God because you do not have the belief as Mary Mother of God, then I pray you to ask God how you can understand this.

We cannot and will not say Mother of the Lord because JWs, Mormons, Buddhists, & Muslims can call Mary the Mother of Lord Jesus, but, they do not define Jesus as God.
 
We do not believe Jesus existed before the Universe. Jesus, the incarnate Lord became incarnate in time. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity existed “before the universe.” Jesus did not.
That’s what I meant. The Son existed in eternity, not the human form. 🙂
 
ummm…when is David ever called Lord? Give me any scriptures you want that use the word Lord other than refering to God and I will show you that to be Mother of Lord must mean Mother of God. It is my assumption that at any time when the word Lord is used for someone other than God it is most certainly used in a different context, and most likely a different word altogether.

While the Trinity may all be God, they are also all individually 100% God. It does not take all 3 to equal God
I’ll give you 1 of the over a thousand times the word ‘Lord’ is used.

“And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD.” 1 Sam. 1:14-15

The first lord is a title of authority.
The second Lord is actually the “name of God” which in many places has been used to avoid using “YHWH”

Hebrew and Aramaic and most old languages did not use capital letters to show the difference. They used other markers.

Though I would love to keep going, I will let you have the last word on that. Though God really has the last word on that.

Please lets move on to the following Marian Dogmas as I stated before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top