W
Wanttobechaste
Guest
A protestant I am debating with said that Mary is not the Mother of God, but that she is just the mother of Jesus’ human nature. How do I refute this?
- Status
M
midori
Guest
That’s called Nestorianism.
I believe the most usual counter-argument is that women do not give birth to “natures”; they give birth to “persons”. A mother can carry her child for nine months, but they never say, “I’m carrying my child’s human nature” and make an effort to split their child’s physical/spiritual aspects into two parts. The same thing is true for Jesus. While he preexisted Mary, of course, he was made incarnate at the time of his conception— but it would be silly to argue that there were two separate, distinct Jesuses running around, one fully divine, one fully human. That would wreak havoc with the concept of the Trinity, now, wouldn’t it?
It would also make the whole concept of the Crucifixion and Easter pretty foolish as well.
Mary gave birth to the person of Jesus, and the person she bore was God.
I believe the most usual counter-argument is that women do not give birth to “natures”; they give birth to “persons”. A mother can carry her child for nine months, but they never say, “I’m carrying my child’s human nature” and make an effort to split their child’s physical/spiritual aspects into two parts. The same thing is true for Jesus. While he preexisted Mary, of course, he was made incarnate at the time of his conception— but it would be silly to argue that there were two separate, distinct Jesuses running around, one fully divine, one fully human. That would wreak havoc with the concept of the Trinity, now, wouldn’t it?
It would also make the whole concept of the Crucifixion and Easter pretty foolish as well.Mary gave birth to the person of Jesus, and the person she bore was God.
U
Uzziah1
Guest
Don’t.
It’s really just a “tempest in a teapot.” By “Mother of God” Catholics mean only what Protestant by-and-large already agree with – that Mary by her “yes” “Be it done unto me according to they word”] collaborated in the conception of the the “Hypostatic Union” within her body, so that she was a “God parter” – the Theotokos. In parturition, the mysterious God-man Christ came out of her.
Catholics do not mean that Mary somehow created the “God”-side of the hypowstatic union.
Protrestants sometimes love to pretend that they disagree with us on this.
There really is no disagreement.
They believe what our Church taught them, before they broke away.
W
Wanttobechaste
Guest
Thanks! This makes perfect sense and should help!That’s called Nestorianism.
I believe the most usual counter-argument is that women do not give birth to “natures”; they give birth to “persons”. A mother can carry her child for nine months, but they never say, “I’m carrying my child’s human nature” and make an effort to split their child’s physical/spiritual aspects into two parts. The same thing is true for Jesus. While he preexisted Mary, of course, he was made incarnate at the time of his conception— but it would be silly to argue that there were two separate, distinct Jesuses running around, one fully divine, one fully human. That would wreak havoc with the concept of the Trinity, now, wouldn’t it?
Mary gave birth to the person of Jesus, and the person she bore was God.
:clapping:
F
fred_conty
Guest
She is not the mother of God from all eternity, into existence,
but rather in TIME, into THIS world.
If Jesus is God, and Mary carried Jesus for 9 months, then Mary is the mother of Jesus,
who is God. If she did not give birth to God, then who is Jesus?
My mother, and your mother, did not give birth to human nature, but to us. We are not human natures, but human beings. Jesus is not a human being, but a divine being who has a human nature.
Just a few ideas.
but rather in TIME, into THIS world.
If Jesus is God, and Mary carried Jesus for 9 months, then Mary is the mother of Jesus,
who is God. If she did not give birth to God, then who is Jesus?
My mother, and your mother, did not give birth to human nature, but to us. We are not human natures, but human beings. Jesus is not a human being, but a divine being who has a human nature.
Just a few ideas.
W
Wanttobechaste
Guest
I agree with all of this except for the part about Jesus not being a human being. I don’t think that is true.
I
itullian
Guest
you can’t seperate out Jesus. he’s man and God. they’re seperating His divinity from Him which can’t be done
so She is the Mother of God.
is it a somewhat mysterious concept? yes, but so is the other way.
so She is the Mother of God.
is it a somewhat mysterious concept? yes, but so is the other way.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
It’s a bit complicated. Christ is indeed both God and man, having both a divine nature and a human nature. However, he is only one person, and his anhypostatic human nature is hypostasized by the divine Logos. In other words, his personhood comes from his eternal divine nature.
W
Wanttobechaste
Guest
He has a human nature, and the church teaches that He became man. So how could He not be a human being as well as being God?
A
Adonia
Guest
As some said here it is easily refuted. Now, whether this person will accept your explanation is an entirely different matter.
W
Wanttobechaste
Guest
Yeah, I know sometimes protestants won’t accept our explanations. will you please pray for him? His name is Jack.
po18guy
Well-known member
An Anglican, unless they are from the modernist wing, should not have big trouble with this. The hypostatic union of two perfect natures, God and man, occurred at the moment of conception.
OK, let’s go to the bible: Luke 1:41-43. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, exclaims “And, whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
The Lord is God. God is the Lord. Mother of Jesus is mother of God - Just not God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit.
OK, let’s go to the bible: Luke 1:41-43. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, exclaims “And, whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
The Lord is God. God is the Lord. Mother of Jesus is mother of God - Just not God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit.
W
Wanttobechaste
Guest
Thanks! I’ll need to bring that verse up. He says that he is Anglican but that he has fundamentalist beliefs too.
L
Lancer
Guest
Your words are heretical.…hopefully not your belief…but your words are** not the faith of the Catholic Church**…
If the say that Mary is the Mother of God…“no ifs… and’s…or buts”…we agree…but if they make caveats of any “flavor”…then we disagree…and we need to be precise and say that we do not agree…we can’t let semantics make us seem like we are in agreement… it’s an injustice to them and to our Faith…unacceptable in my opinion.
Pax Christi
L
Lancer
Guest
W
Wanttobechaste
Guest
What did he say that is not part of the Catholic faith?
U
Uzziah1
Guest
Okay, judging friend, how does what I said disagree with the Church’s teaching?
I wish the Catholics here did not throw around the word “heresy” so much.
They throw it around like candy at a parade, but never, ever, ever – not once – have I ever seen someone here say, “I have changed my opinion. What I said before was HERESY!!!”
Do you want to know something?: Three-quarters of the people here disagree with the Church on something.
So, why don’t you just throw away the word “heresy” and speak with utter humility and kindness?
T
thistle
Guest
That always makes me smile because the founders of Protestantism all declared in writing that Mary is the Mother of God.
Martin Luther:
“. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)
Huldreich Zwingli:
‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’ (a sermon in 1524)
Heinrich Bullinger:
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
F
fred_conty
Guest
Lancer;
“She is not the mother of God from all eternity, into existence,
but rather in TIME, into THIS world.”
The above says that Mary was not the mother of God from all eternity. I’ll stand by that because Mary did not exist from all eternity.
And the words " in TIME", dosen’t exclude that she gave birth to an eternal son who did exist from all eternity.
Thanks for the comment. I’m sure others may have benefited from this.
“She is not the mother of God from all eternity, into existence,
but rather in TIME, into THIS world.”
The above says that Mary was not the mother of God from all eternity. I’ll stand by that because Mary did not exist from all eternity.
And the words " in TIME", dosen’t exclude that she gave birth to an eternal son who did exist from all eternity.
Thanks for the comment. I’m sure others may have benefited from this.
F
fred_conty
Guest
I know that it is difficult to keep straight about natures and persons.
But lets briefly look at it.
If Jesus is a human being, then he cannot be a divine being, for then he would be two beings.
If Jesus is a divine being, then he cannot be a human being, for then he would be two beings.
So Jesus is one being, with a divine nature and human nature.
Have a great day.
- Status