I don't understand the problem with the title "Mary, Mother of God"

[CopticChristian]

The Bible says that Elisabeth called Mary, “Mother of My Lord”

If Saint Elisabeth said it, then we sinners can as well,

Mary IS the Mother of God and it in NO WAY disrespects Jesus to call her this!

You have been given logic, now you have been given support from the Scriptures. Why won’t you call the Mother of Our Lord the Mother of God. That is what she is, that is what she willingly took upon herself in the annunciation.

I sense your problem with Mary’s valid title is that you have not accepted her as your mother as Christ commanded on the cross when He told the disciple, “Behold your mother.”

Mary always leads us to her son, and like she did at Cana with the wine that as needed, she pleads for Jesus to have mercy on us sinners. Behold your mother!

I believe patience is essential in dealing with those Christians that are Baptized and uninformed. The further these Christians are from denominational Protestant thought the less likely they are to understand what it is that God wants them to know. The notion of 'behold" they may believe they understand without looking at the Greek or other uses of the word.

concordances.org/greek/3708.htm

The word behold is used twice in successive sentences.

The word in Greek is a verb, an action word, that means…

3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: “to see with the mind” (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

[The aorist form (eidon), is discussed at 1492 /eídō, “see.” The future tense, and middle-passive form, are discussed under 3700 /optánomai, “see.”]

26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, **behold thy son! 27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold **thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

These poor uneducated, unkowledgeable “just Christians” don’t recognize that Jesus, the one that in the posts in this thread is being argued for as God…they don’t recognize that God is saying…BEHOLD…nor do they understand what it means…He says it twice…kind of like “hey take notice”…

They forget that the passage that they use to prove Scripture…

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

does not prove that Scripture is Scripture…but let us be thankful that this is buried in their brains and hearts and that we don’t have to point it out to them…for this let us all be grateful…because now we can not only point out that it doesn’t prove what they were taught that it proves…

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

rather we can say, we know that there was no written OT that they studied, rather they memorized it and knew it, and if they believe that this passage is worth repeating then if you cannot as Timothy and Paul did, memorize the OT, the least that they can do is read it and understand it…

Most of these “just Christians” have been swept up in the notion that God has a plan for them and with proper study and guidance they can see in the OT that God indeed had a plan…if they at least take the time to study it and not neglect it…

Paul tells us in Hebrews that God spoke in many and various ways and every Jew knew the OT. We cannot blame these New Testament “just Christians” for not hearing…however

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,

It is important to consider that we are obligated to teach what that plan was so that as salvation is upon us that they not get complacent and neglect the entire picture of what was done…as Paul warns…

3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

and if as they say and believe that the Bible is Jesus and the word is Jesus then that speech of salvation commenced with the rfall of Adam and Eve…we cannot blame them for what they do not know however we can urge them to study Salvation history and understand that God made us in the image and likeness of a Family and then a household, then a tribe, then…until we get to the prototype of the Kingdom…so that Paul can and did say that the Church was the mystery hidden for all ages…

Patience is a virtue.

 

[rbarcia]

I believe patience is essential in dealing with those Christians that are Baptized and uninformed. The further these Christians are from denominational Protestant thought the less likely they are to understand what it is that God wants them to know. The notion of 'behold" they may believe they understand without looking at the Greek or other uses of the word.

These poor uneducated, unkowledgeable “just Christians”

Patience is a virtue.

Wow how patient you are to deal with such uneducated people. You should give yourself a pat on the back.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Wow how patient you are to deal with such uneducated people. You should give yourself a pat on the back.

Your a trip, me I’m just talking off the top of my head. No script, parapharse and all. As you see, even some ad-lib:thumbsup:

 

[rbarcia]

Your a trip, me I’m just talking off the top of my head. No script, parapharse and all. As you see, even some ad-lib:thumbsup:

It is ok, I am fine talking with you. You are just stating beliefs and pointing to things which is ok. Just don’t know why people have to talk down to other people. I don’t think I insulted a person, but hey.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is ok, I am fine talking with you. You are just stating beliefs and pointing to things which is ok. Just don’t know why people have to talk down to other people. I don’t think I insulted a person, but hey.

As far as this
“So when Paul says “it is not I that lives. but Christ that lives within me”, he really means if you are baptized in the Trinity?”

You know what come to mind off the top of my head is Paul in Gal 4:4-5-6. But ya your right.

rbarcia I pretty much believe its time for all Christianity to put our heads together on all this. I really try to avoid CC teaching and pretty much stick with the Bible for that reason. Obviously not you, but even the Incarnation as your read back through this thread is in question. So the understanding varys to such a degree that it seems to me a baseline is needed to start.

So intercessional prayer your good with, your just not convinced that the Saints in Heaven could interceed?

 

[AbideWithMe]

I believe patience is essential in dealing with those Christians that are Baptized and uninformed. The further these Christians are from denominational Protestant thought the less likely they are to understand what it is that God wants them to know. The notion of 'behold" they may believe they understand without looking at the Greek or other uses of the word.

concordances.org/greek/3708.htm

The word behold is used twice in successive sentences.

The word in Greek is a verb, an action word, that means…

3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: “to see with the mind” (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

These poor uneducated, unkowledgeable “just Christians” don’t recognize that Jesus, the one that in the posts in this thread is being argued for as God…they don’t recognize that God is saying…BEHOLD…nor do they understand what it means…He says it twice…kind of like “hey take notice”…

They forget that the passage that they use to prove Scripture…

does not prove that Scripture is Scripture…but let us be thankful that this is buried in their brains and hearts and that we don’t have to point it out to them…for this let us all be grateful…because now we can not only point out that it doesn’t prove what they were taught that it proves…

rather we can say, we know that there was no written OT that they studied, rather they memorized it and knew it, and if they believe that this passage is worth repeating then if you cannot as Timothy and Paul did, memorize the OT, the least that they can do is read it and understand it…

Most of these “just Christians” have been swept up in the notion that God has a plan for them and with proper study and guidance they can see in the OT that God indeed had a plan…if they at least take the time to study it and not neglect it…

Paul tells us in Hebrews that God spoke in many and various ways and every Jew knew the OT. We cannot blame these New Testament “just Christians” for not hearing…however

It is important to consider that we are obligated to teach what that plan was so that as salvation is upon us that they not get complacent and neglect the entire picture of what was done…as Paul warns…

and if as they say and believe that the Bible is Jesus and the word is Jesus then that speech of salvation commenced with the rfall of Adam and Eve…we cannot blame them for what they do not know however we can urge them to study Salvation history and understand that God made us in the image and likeness of a Family and then a household, then a tribe, then…until we get to the prototype of the Kingdom…so that Paul can and did say that the Church was the mystery hidden for all ages…

Patience is a virtue.

Coptic—

Now you’re just being rude.

 

[CopticChristian]

Wow how patient you are to deal with such uneducated people. You should give yourself a pat on the back.

Patience is a virtue and to consider pats on the back would detract from humility.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

Now you’re just being rude.

Help me understand what you percieve to be rude.

Do you believe that 2 Timothy 3:16 validates anything about the New Testament?

 

[Journey322]

“Mary Mother of God” implies that Mary existed before God and that is the objection you will always get. When you explain the logical concept that Mary is the mother of Jesus; Jesus is God; therefore Mary is the mother of God, then you get a genuinely Nestorian response. It will usually go something like, “But Mary was only the mother of the Jesus the man.” I went through this once with a well educated person and at that point told her that this is a Nestorian view that she was expressing. She agreed wholeheartedly and then said, “You know, Nestorius was right about Mary and the Council of Ephesus was wrong.”

Few will be so forthright, but the truth is that most Protestants, at least those of the Evangelical stripe, are Nestorians.

Hmm…My background is in evangelical Chrisitanity and I nor anyone I know has a problem with the title “Mary Mother of God.”

 

[rbarcia]

Help me understand what you percieve to be rude.

Do you believe that 2 Timothy 3:16 validates anything about the New Testament?

I have no issues with you pointing out Scripture, pointing to tradition, Greek, etc…

Just statements like this:

**These poor uneducated, unkowledgeable “just Christians” **

So I will discuss with others like GaryTaylor, who seems very nice. But I stopped reading your post after the insult on intelligence.

You can go ahead and enjoy your humble patience

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic is
I don’t understand the problem with the title “Mary, Mother of God”
I suggest we all return to it and post with charity

 

[GaryTaylor]

So I believe Jesus is born of a virgin. I believe Mary is a very Blessed woman. A role model for Christians.

I don’t believe in things like Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, her role as Co-Mediator, that she was sinless, Mother of the Church, and Queen of Heaven. Verses like Rev 12, the woman symbolizes Israel. So to go back to the point of this thread, I believe acknowledging the “title” leads to the above. It is step one in a reasoning chain used to convince of all Marian doctrines. That is my problem with the title.

Right, yet when we start talking Catholic Doctrine which proceeds this we are already projecting past the point of Mother of God. I get that.

Yet She is the Mother of the Lord…biblically. She is Blessed - Virgin - Mother - Mary…Biblically.

Mother of God/Theotokos are very early doctrines.

Why then would we err on the lesser side and not the greater side? If in fact there is any error?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hmm…My background is in evangelical Chrisitanity and I nor anyone I know has a problem with the title “Mary Mother of God.”

Same here.

 

[CopticChristian]

Same here.

If I were to speak to you of Genesis and the creation, without mentioning anything you would think of Adam and Eve. If you were told that there was a fall you would recall Eve being the first decieved and then Adam. If you had this in your head and then…if you were to read this…

17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Well, so what, Adam and Eve fell, they sinned…

But when Paul writes…this…

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Does Paul have to mention Eve or is it a given that perhaps you are to say “what about Eve” or “well it was Adam and Eve” but I understand your point Paul…

The queen mother has importance in Israel’s prophetic tradition, particularly in the Emmanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. This passage, filled with strong Davidic overtones, is important because it is associated with Israel’s messianic hopes and was explicitly related to Mary and Jesus in the New Testament (Mt 1:23).

The prophecy comes during a period of dynastic crisis. Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel threaten to invade the Kingdom of Judah. Ahaz, the king of Judah, fears that the dynasty may be coming to an end with him (Is 7:1-6). Isaiah is sent by God to assure a doubting Ahaz that the kingdom will survive this foreign threat and challenge him to entrust his throne to the Lord. Isaiah then gives a sign to the house of David that will serve as a confirmation of Yahweh’s protection of the Davidic dynasty:

Here then O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin (almah) shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel (Is 7:13-14).

Why did the passage have to include a virgin? Why did God not just tell Isaiah to write a “son shall come and he will be called Emmanuel. This will be the sign O house of David.”

Those hearing or reading this prophecy were well tuned into the notion of the Davidic Kingdom and would have understood that there was to be a Queen mother. It was a given.

Once you see that the Immanuel child is a Davidic king, the young woman (almah) conceiving this child would have been understood as the mother of the king. Furthermore, in this oracle addressed specifically to the Davidic household (Is 7:13), the young woman bearing the royal son, an heir to the throne, would have been understood as a queen mother. With Isaiah’s overriding concern for dynastic succession in the house of David, it is fitting that this prophecy links the royal son with his queen mother—the very woman who played an important role in dynastic succession and in the royal court.

 

[Zenas]

Hmm…My background is in evangelical Chrisitanity and I nor anyone I know has a problem with the title “Mary Mother of God.”

I don’t know what brand of evangelicalism you are from but I am intimately familiar with the Baptist and the Church of Christ brands, and they definitely consider this an heretical belief. I’m pretty sure the various pentecostal groups also call it heresy.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t know what brand of evangelicalism you are from but I am intimately familiar with the Baptist and the Church of Christ brands, and they definitely consider this an heretical belief. I’m pretty sure the various pentecostal groups also call it heresy.

The question is on whose authority would Baptists, Church of Christ and Pentecostals have to determine authroitatively heresy.

First based on the Synod of Dort all that are not Calvinists are heretics. There has been no synod since to reverse that decision.

Second the Campbellites that gave rise to Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ sprang from Presbyterianism…and as I understand it have Lutheran influences and are not necessarily Calvinist. Baptists sprung from the Anglicans that departed through Divorce from the OHCAC. Who is on first?

It reminds me of a joke…I read on the web concerning this absurdity…

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

 

[Telestia]

As an evangelical Christian, I have no problem with some calling Mary ‘the mother of God’, for that is what she was when Jesus was in a physical body here on Earth, she was Jesus earthly mother. The same is true of Joseph, he was the father of Jesus while he lived on earth, and since Jesus is God, Joseph too can be called the father of God, for that is what he was when he and Jesus lived on earth.

I am certain that no catholic is calling Mary a goddess, nor Joseph a god. that would be absurd.

My mother and father were my father and mother only while I am alive on earth and they are alive. In fact, if my mother and father died right during my first year of life, and then I was adopted by by a married couple. They would be my mother and my father on this earth.

Just as a man is a husband to the one he married, and she is his wife, they remain husband and wife. But upon death they cease to be husband and wife. So it is for my mother and father, they were my temporal mother and father until death, then they cease being my parents.

Even foster parents may be called father and mother by their foster children, particularly if they were well raised and loved by them.

However, Jesus is Eternal and has an Eternal Father. God the Father and God the Son are Eternal and always existed, and God the Father created us and all things through His only begotten Son. They preceded all living beings, including Mary and Joseph, being their Creations.

So I would not make a big deal about Catholics calling Joseph and Mary Jesus father and mother while they and Jesus walked the earth, and likewise, my earthly father and mother ceased to be my mother and father upon their departures from the Earth, they ceased to be my parents.

We are spirits created by God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ, who was with Him in the beginning, and through Jesus we were created and all that is was created. We are not our bodies, our body is mere clothing. We are spirits that inhabit a physical body for a short time.

 

[Marybeloved]

So I would not make a big deal about Catholics calling Joseph and Mary Jesus father and mother while they and Jesus walked the earth, and likewise, my earthly father and mother ceased to be my mother and father upon their departures from the Earth, they ceased to be my parents.

Are you sure? The reason marriage ends at death is that it is based on a free choice of mutual self-exchange of each other (physically and spiritually)- once the body exchanged is dead, the exchange becomes non-existent. Mother-hood has nothing to do with a choice (especially on the part of the child), and I don’t see how it can be said to end at death. After all, that which your mother gave you is yours forever. It’s stay in the grave is only temporary.

We are spirits created by God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ, who was with Him in the beginning, and through Jesus we were created and all that is was created. We are not our bodies, our body is mere clothing. We are spirits that inhabit a physical body for a short time.

We are both spirit and body- it’s what we are, it’s our nature. Why do you think it mattered that Our Lord resurrect and it matters that we all will receive back our bodies, to be glorified or damned at the end of time? We are not angels- God gave them a purely intellectual (spiritual) nature- not us. We inhabit both the physical and spiritual worlds.

 

[emmaberry]

So I would not make a big deal about Catholics calling Joseph and Mary Jesus father and mother while they and Jesus walked the earth, and likewise, my earthly father and mother ceased to be my mother and father upon their departures from the Earth, they ceased to be my parents.

Mary did not cease being Jesus’ Mother AKA Mother of God when she departed from the earth for two reasons:

(1) She did not die-she was assumed into heaven.
(2) As Mother of Jesus AKA God she is also the Queen of Heaven-no decent King rules without (H)his Queen! Her Motherhood extends beyond the temporary world.

I don’t have evidence that supports that parenthood/childhood continues on past death, but I am pretty sure that even if one of my parents died, I could continue calling them ‘my parent’ even in death.

 

[emmaberry]

Hmm…My background is in evangelical Chrisitanity and I nor anyone I know has a problem with the title “Mary Mother of God.”

That is great to hear! I am not sure if the churches I was raised in would have problems…but if they caught on that it was a Catholic thing I think they would have rejected it just on that point.