If Mary was the mother of God...

[nominal_effect]

and God is your Father, does that not make Mary your GRAND MOTHER ???

Serious answers only please.

The seriousness is in question I see from others. But it seems more like a logical trap that fails the logic test. It is important to understand definitions when dealing with building valid arguments. In this particular case it is important to understand the context of the dogma “Mother of God”. This in no way deny that Jesus was both Man and God. It was more about Jesus than Mary in fact. but the mystery of it also speaks mounds about Mary. It’s about the hypostatic union, Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, a mathematical anomaly to our logic.

You logic is flawed.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

In other words a MOTHER - which is what a person’s ‘bearer’ IS. The person who bore you is your mother. The person who bore me is my mother. The person who bore Jesus is HIS mother.

It’s only inaccurate and not right either:

a) If Jesus is not God. Impossible, because Jesus IS God. OR

b) If Mary didn’t bear Him (and thus isn’t His mother). Again incorrect - He is her son.

And being in her womb (as her son) He is at one and the very same time Elizabeth’s Lord. And Mary is thus the ‘mother of my Lord’. Lord meaning God.

In His humanity as Elizabeth’s cousin’s son, Jesus had no ‘Lordship’ over her in any sense of the word. Not even headship of the family - that office would belong to Zechariah or Joseph or someone. It is ONLY as Elizabeth’s GOD - which He was EVEN while borne in Mary’s womb, as her son - that Jesus is ALSO Elizabeth’s Lord.

So ELIZABETH is the first to call Mary ‘mother of God’ in calling her ‘mother of my Lord’. The words ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are in this sense completely the same thing. So the title ‘Mother of God’ is right there in scripture!

It is shortsighted to focus on the procedure instead of the order of things before that procedure. Going through a process does NOT imply that the entities in it are a result of the process.

If Jesus already existed before Mary. Which is an undeniable fact. Then the process of Jesus coming to earth through Mary does not make her His mother.

Under normal circumstances, that procedure would be called Mother…but in this case, NOT the type that conceives a child because the Bible stated clearly that the conception of Jesus was the WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

PS. If my hair grows because of me can my hair give birth to me? Of course not. Even if the hair is as thick as a building’s column and I walk out from it, does that make it my parent? No. Call it anything you want, but I am who I am and I am not borne from it.

.

 

[swariffin]

Biedrik, 1 + 1 only = 2 when they are separate entities.

But here, 1 + 1 is NOT = 2 because the order is not sequential and one “1” is in the other “1”.

To say that Jesus is in the Father God, and the Father in Him, and then say that the son came about through the mother with the help of the Father is totally wrong because before Mary was, Jesus was (since Jesus Himself said He was even before Abraham). Mary therefore is something that only existed BECAUSE of Jesus. Not the other way around. Note the order here.

Remember, the Bible clears says that nothing in this world is made without Him. So, Jesus came about NOT because of Mary but Mary came about because of Jesus! What role then does Mary have in the conception of Jesus? Nothing more than just a ‘bearer’ or ‘point’ of emergence.

Therefore to call Mary, the mother of God is in-accurate and not right.

.

Jesus was originally the word of God, with God, and is God (John 1:1). This word of God to become man, must be born by human female. This word of God, and the existence of the human female who gave birth to this word of God to became human is both under the will of God. See Gen 3:15.

The fact that Mary is called the mother of God, because Mary is the mother of Jesus. Since we accept that Jesus is God, then Mary called the mother of God. Otherwise, such title is inapplicable. It does not mean and there is no teaching whatsoever in the RCC that God the Father marry a human female, nor the teaching that God is born. The title of Mother of God to Mary does not mean that Mary became God either. If you dig previous thread in this forum, you would find that with respect to Islam, Trinity is God, Mary and Jesus.

I am just wondering since you do not declare your religion (which is your right to do so) that perhaps you are a muslim. Your arguments really sounds like them.

 

[AndrewA]

I was also conceived thanks to my father:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception

I think you are splitting hairs. Many here gave you good responses, but this just keeps going in circles

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Jesus was originally the word of God, with God, and is God (John 1:1). This word of God to become man, must be born by human female. This word of God, and the existence of the human female who gave birth to this word of God to became human is both under the will of God. See Gen 3:15.

The fact that Mary is called the mother of God, because Mary is the mother of Jesus. Since we accept that Jesus is God, then Mary called the mother of God. Otherwise, such title is inapplicable. It does not mean and there is no teaching whatsoever in the RCC that God the Father marry a human female, nor the teaching that God is born. The title of Mother of God to Mary does not mean that Mary became God either. If you dig previous thread in this forum, you would find that with respect to Islam, Trinity is God, Mary and Jesus.

I am just wondering since you do not declare your religion (which is your right to do so) that perhaps you are a muslim. Your arguments really sounds like them.

Firstly, muslims do not believe Jesus is God. I do. That makes you wrong on your judgement of me.

Secondly, the term God itself is a title. An honorary title that claims the entity to be self-existent, self-sustaining & omnipotent. Putting a mother-title over such an entity not only makes the title look silly, it makes the ‘mother’ herself look silly.

Finally, you said that for the ‘word of God to become man, there must be a human female’. Have you not read that Jesus said in the book of John that even STONES can be turned into the descendants of Abraham?

PS. I’m not splitting hairs, I’m very clear. Something that existed even before another cannot be borne of the latter.

.

 

[Ruthie_again]

What is missing in your logic, Rumpelstiltskin, is the fact of the Trinity: three Persons, one God.

The first Person is God the Father. Mary is his daughter.

The second person is God the Son. He existed before Jesus as a spirit, and was made incarnate - physically became a man - when he was conceived in Mary. Mary is His mother.

The third Person is the Holy Spirit. He conceived Jesus with Mary. He is Mary’s spouse.

These three Persons are one God. Mary is, indeed, the daughter, mother, and spouse of the Triune God.

You are right to say that, according to the laws of nature, this is impossible. There is one exception, and that is Mary.

Here’s another fact for you to chew on. Jesus was neither completely human, nor was he merely God clothed in flesh. He was fully God and fully man.

May God bless you,

Ruthie
What does logic have to do with it, anyway? God created logic!

 

[LilyM]

Finally, you said that for the ‘word of God to become man, there must be a human female’. Have you not read that Jesus said in the book of John that even STONES can be turned into the descendants of Abraham?

But Jesus CHOSE not to have His body created from a stone. Jesus CHOSE to take flesh in the womb of the blessed Virgin. He CHOSE to become like us in all ways (including the way of being born of a mother) except sin. God being born of a woman is not sin, therefore it is one (though only one) of the ways in which God, in the person of Jesus, became like us.

If the idea of Mary’s being Mother of God is ridiculous and contrary to logic, then you must find the idea of God Himself (omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal) becoming true Man (finite in existence and powers, attributes which are most UNGodlike) equally logically ridiculous. And yet Jesus was both true omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal God AND finite and limited Man. Imagine Almighty God telling His human creatures ‘you shall perform the same works as these (as God’s works!) - AND STILL GREATER!’ Yet He, in the person of Jesus, said it, and truly meant it because He can neither deceive nor be deceived.

God chose to show us how truly marvellous was the extent of His humility, that He would resign His powers to such a degree. He did so to subvert our human notions of what He must be, in order to show us the extent of His love, to set an example for us, and show us how little we truly understand about Him, and how utterly feeble and pathetic our human logic is.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

What is missing in your logic, Rumpelstiltskin, is the fact of the Trinity: three Persons, one God.

The first Person is God the Father. Mary is his daughter.

The second person is God the Son. He existed before Jesus as a spirit, and was made incarnate - physically became a man - when he was conceived in Mary. Mary is His mother.

The third Person is the Holy Spirit. He conceived Jesus with Mary. He is Mary’s spouse.

These three Persons are one God. Mary is, indeed, the daughter, mother, and spouse of the Triune God.

You are right to say that, according to the laws of nature, this is impossible. There is one exception, and that is Mary.

Here’s another fact for you to chew on. Jesus was neither completely human, nor was he merely God clothed in flesh. He was fully God and fully man.

May God bless you,

Ruthie
What does logic have to do with it, anyway? God created logic!

It doesn’t matter how you split into 3 person(s). God is still ONE. And Mary still exists AFTER God. Without God, there’s no Mary and consequently she cannot be His mother. If you don’t use this simple logic, then there’s no stopping anyone from saying even that Abraham came from Samson.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

But Jesus CHOSE not to have His body created from a stone. Jesus CHOSE to take flesh in the womb of the blessed Virgin. He CHOSE to become like us in all ways (including the way of being born of a mother) except sin. God being born of a woman is not sin, therefore it is one (though only one) of the ways in which God became Man.

If the idea of Mary’s being Mother of God is ridiculous and contrary to logic, then you must find the idea of God Himself (omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal) becoming true Man (finite in existence and powers, attributes which are most UNGodlike) equally logically ridiculous. And Jesus was - imagine Almighty God telling His human creatures ‘you shall perform the same works as these (as God’s works!) - AND STILL GREATER!’ Yet He said it, and meant it.

God chose to show us how truly marvellous was the extent of His humility, that He would resign His powers to such a degree. He did so to subvert our human notions of what He must be, in order to show us the extent of His love, to set an example for us, and show us how little we truly understand about Him, and how utterly feeble and pathetic our human logic is.

Jesus CHOSE…If He can choose even before He was born then the one who made Him when He was able to choose (before being born on earth) must be the source of His life and not Mary.

I think the issue here lies with the understanding of how the physical body of Jesus came about. The body of Jesus could be crucified at the cross because it was human. That body came from Mary. But note this, the body of flesh is NOT God. It is the Spirit in that body which is God.

Fully Man + Fully God. The Man portion came from Mary…the God portion is God (which has no mother). - This is perhaps the closest explanation I can give.

God has no mother.
.

 

[LilyM]

Jesus CHOSE…If He can choose even before He was born then the one who made Him when He was able to choose (before being born on earth) must be the source of His life and not Mary.

I think the issue here lies with the understanding of how the physical body of Jesus came about. The body of Jesus could be crucified at the cross because it was human. That body came from Mary. But note this, the body of flesh is NOT God. It is the Spirit in that body which is God.

Fully Man + Fully God. The Man portion came from Mary…the God portion is God (which has no mother). - This is perhaps the closest explanation I can give.

God has no mother.
.

The one who made Him? For shame. God has no maker. Jesus had no maker. But He had a mother.

Jesus doesn’t have ‘portions’. He isn’t a pie to be sliced up into a dozen pieces. He is ONE person. ONE and only one. Without His humanity (once He chose to become human) He wouldn’t be Jesus, without His divinity He isn’t Jesus either. That’s why His body as well as His Spirit had to return to the Father in heaven. BOTH are essential parts of His personhood, and He cannot now do without either body or Spirit.

That ONE person at one and the same time, upon becoming incarnate was both human and divine. The humanity and the divinity weren’t separate in any way. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the suffering and death of His human body would matter no more than the suffering and death of any other human body.

A crucified human body alone can’t save souls. A crucified and resurrected GOD-MAN (who is at ONE AND THE SAME TIME both divine and human) is the only being that can save us.

Put it this way - was it Jesus’ body or spirit that saved us? If just His body, separate and apart from His Spirit, then why bother infusing that body with a divine spirit rather than a purely human spirit? Couldn’t someone else’s body have done just as well if the mere death of a body was required?

If just His Spirit, separate and apart from His body, then why bother becoming human at all? Why not stay nice and comfortable in heaven, say the word and save us?

Clearly it is the inseparably linked divine and human natures of the one person, Jesus, that were required to do the job.

 

[Tietjen]

Just answer me this. Can God be borne?

If He so chooses to… and guess what, He chose to be a man. He WAS born in the person of Jesus the Christ. If you deny this then you are either saying that the Bible is fallible; and/or that God cannot do some thing(s); and/or that Christ wasn’t God. Take your pick… which argument are you going to use? Now, if your point is that God has no beginning and no end, that too is a true statement. However, He chose a salvation plan for man that included His being born human. In the case of Christ, He has always been and will always be just as the Father and Holy Ghost have always been and will always be. However, in the case of Christ, He willed Himself to become man in order that the plan of salvation would be available for humanity. That doesn’t mean that prior to His conception He didn’t exist as part of the Holy Trinity. Don’t try to limit or dictate to God when He existed or what He can and cannot do. The end result will not be a happy one. You are the clay jar and God is the clay jar maker. What right does a clay jar have in denying or dictate possibilities to the jar maker???

 

[Tietjen]

Jesus CHOSE…If He can choose even before He was born then the one who made Him when He was able to choose (before being born on earth) must be the source of His life and not Mary.

I think the issue here lies with the understanding of how the physical body of Jesus came about. The body of Jesus could be crucified at the cross because it was human. That body came from Mary. But note this, the body of flesh is NOT God. It is the Spirit in that body which is God.

Fully Man + Fully God. The Man portion came from Mary…the God portion is God (which has no mother). - This is perhaps the closest explanation I can give.

God has no mother.
.

Interesting concept and interpretation… So, if I am to understand what you are saying… You are saying that the Christ (Jesus) was actually two beings (1 being a man and mortal and one being Spirit and God). That the “man” was born of a woman (Mary), but that since the Spirit (God) has always existed It cannot be included in the birth? Am I correct so far? Okay, assuming that you’re onboard with that… Which of the two beings of Christ was able to be killed on the cross? If it was the man… how can the blood sacrifice of just a man save humanity (the salvation)? If it was God that was killed on the cross, how can men kill God? LOL… “Things that make you go hmmm.”

Now here’s the truth of the matter. You cannot separate the Christ into two personas. He was both man AND God from conception to crucifixion. That doesn’t makes sense to our finite little minds but sometimes you just have to accept that as a human being, you were not meant to understand everything. However, I promise you that it wasn’t too difficult for God to figure out and since I trust Him, I don’t really need to understand the “How’s” of the situation, I just need to know and accept that NOTHING is impossible for God. To question that, is to limit God, and that is something I would not suggest doing my brother.

 

[Tietjen]

It doesn’t matter how you split into 3 person(s). God is still ONE. And Mary still exists AFTER God. Without God, there’s no Mary and consequently she cannot be His mother. If you don’t use this simple logic, then there’s no stopping anyone from saying even that Abraham came from Samson.

Accept that Abraham wasn’t God. You REALLY need to stop trying to put God and His abilities into a “logical” box. What is more easy for you to believe in, a God that willed Himself to take on the form of man by being born of a woman, or a God who created EVERYTHING in just 6 days? God doesn’t have to comply with your logic. That is a limitation of being human not of being God.

 

[Tietjen]

It is shortsighted to focus on the procedure instead of the order of things before that procedure. Going through a process does NOT imply that the entities in it are a result of the process.

If Jesus already existed before Mary. Which is an undeniable fact. Then the process of Jesus coming to earth through Mary does not make her His mother.

Under normal circumstances, that procedure would be called Mother…but in this case, NOT the type that conceives a child because the Bible stated clearly that the conception of Jesus was the WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

PS. If my hair grows because of me can my hair give birth to me? Of course not. Even if the hair is as thick as a building’s column and I walk out from it, does that make it my parent? No. Call it anything you want, but I am who I am and I am not borne from it.

.

There you are using your understanding of what is possible to dictate to God what He can and cannot do. Let me ask you, If Scripture plainly stated that Mary was His mother; would you argue the matter even then? Would you tell God, “Sorry, you are wrong about that one?” Using “logic” if you are certain that Mary is NOT the mother of God then it can also be said that God is not the son of Mary correct??? Assuming that you agree with this statement, you will have to excuse me as I must now go and mark out several verses in the Bible because they dispute your “logic.” Isaiah 7:14, Matt 1:23, Matt 2:11, Lk 1:43, etc, etc, etc. … There, now my Bible must look like yours. No more references to Jesus being called the Son of Mary and no more references to Mary being called the mother of Jesus. But wait… isn’t there a special verse in Revelation that warns against adding to or taking away from scripture???

 

[VetA]

this thread seems to be leading in circles, not trying to tell the mods what to do, but it seems that OP asked a question, he was answered he presented a counter argument, to which a counter counter argument was presented, to which the original counter argument was re stated and it is just going to go on and on like that. please mods close it so the insults don’t start flying.

 

[Tietjen]

this thread seems to be leading in circles, not trying to tell the mods what to do, but it seems that OP asked a question, he was answered he presented a counter argument, to which a counter counter argument was presented, to which the original counter argument was re stated and it is just going to go on and on like that. please mods close it so the insults don’t start flying.

I agree and this will be my last post on this thread as I and others have spent more than 24 hours attempting to explain the situation to the OP and he/she does simply not understand.

I have a soul, and I have a body. Which of these am I? Is it the soul or the body that is who I am? Will God hold my body responsible for the time I spend on earth or my soul? If my soul is who I and God hold to be accountable and most important, then “I” am my soul and my body is nothing more than a vehicle. Now… I was born of a woman. I call that woman mother (actually I call her “mom” because it sounds less "stuffy). BUT, even though she carried me for 9 months, gave birth to me, and reared me… did she create me (remember “I” am a soul)? Did she create my soul? No; she did not. God created my soul so why should I call this woman mother (mom)? Now, if God, rather than creating a new soul at the conception within Mary’s womb, chooses to enter that “vehicle” Himself, why is it that Mary becomes any less a mother than my mom? Mary carries the baby, delivers the baby, rears the child, instructs the child, feeds the child, watches the child become a man, and then watches the child impaled on a cross and die. Through all this you refuse to accept that Mary is the mother of the Christ. You refuse to acknowledge her as the mother of Jesus (who IS God incarnate), because you yourself cannot grasp how if God existed before Mary He can accomplish such a thing? Because God is Spirit and Spirit cannot be born of flesh. You choose to question God’s ability and attempt to justify your argument with logic. Yet, I am fairly certain that you do not question that God can create something from nothing even though that too defies logic. I find it very sad that people rely so heavily on logic when attempting to understand God. They believe that if they can’t fathom it, rationalize it, put it in a pretty box with a bow, it must not be Truth. Very sad indeed. God bless and take care my Protestant brother/sister in Christ.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Something that existed even before another cannot be borne of the latter.

why not?

 

[WetCatechumen]

Jesus CHOSE…If He can choose even before He was born then the one who made Him when He was able to choose (before being born on earth) must be the source of His life and not Mary.

I think the issue here lies with the understanding of how the physical body of Jesus came about. The body of Jesus could be crucified at the cross because it was human. That body came from Mary. But note this, the body of flesh is NOT God. It is the Spirit in that body which is God.

Fully Man + Fully God. The Man portion came from Mary…the God portion is God (which has no mother). - This is perhaps the closest explanation I can give.

God has no mother.
.

There is no man portion, and there is no God portion. There were not two persons inhabiting a single body. There was only one person in one body. There was not a body mysteriously controlled by the Divine Spirit of Christ.

No.

Jesus Christ is fully human and fully Divine simultaneously. He took his Divinity from the Father, begotten of him before all ages. He took his humanity from his Mother, at the Annunciation.

What you have done is to repeat the error of Nestorius, an Archbishop of Constantinople of the 5th Century, who promulgated the error that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God. You are saying: there is a part of Christ that is God and not human, and a part of Christ that is human and not God.

Jesus Christ is a single person. He is not subdivided into parts. It was not the man part that was crucified and the God part that was uncreated.

Jesus Christ was crucified. Yes, his Body was pierced and his Blood was spilled, and he had those as evidence and by virtue of his humanity. However, it was not the human part of Jesus that was crucified. The person Jesus Christ was crucified. It was possible because he was human. He died because he was human.

There is not a man portion of which Mary is the Mother. There is a single, undivided person who has a Mother - Mary. It just so happens that the person is also God. Hence, God has a mother.

 

[swariffin]

Firstly, muslims do not believe Jesus is God. I do. That makes you wrong on your judgement of me.

Secondly, the term God itself is a title. An honorary title that claims the entity to be self-existent, self-sustaining & omnipotent. Putting a mother-title over such an entity not only makes the title look silly, it makes the ‘mother’ herself look silly.

Finally, you said that for the ‘word of God to become man, there must be a human female’. Have you not read that Jesus said in the book of John that even STONES can be turned into the descendants of Abraham?

PS. I’m not splitting hairs, I’m very clear. Something that existed even before another cannot be borne of the latter.

.

Do you know any human made of STONE?

If God wants His word to become a man, surely He must prepare a human female to bring him to this world. Do you think that Jesus the word of God appeared in this world by having Star-Trek kind of transporter? “Scotty beam me down!!!”

To God, nothing is impossible. Even the muslim believes that.

BTW, you admit that Jesus is God. That is good. I would like to play as the devil’s advocate for you. Please tell me why do you think that Jesus is God. Do you believe also that the Holy Spirit is God? please quote the bible for me.

 

[sonettegarbin]

[SIGN]

If Jesus was not fully man, it would not be possible to crucify Him. But being both Man & God does not imply that BOTH entities came from Mary. Bear in mind that the conception of Jesus was the WORK of the Holy Spirit. Of what contribution Mary truly made in that delivery is something nobody here can claim. It could be 10% or it could be 1%…or even 0%.

[/SIGN]

No Christian would ever claim that of Mary. Mary contributed 100% embryo, developing fetus, born baby to be crucified man, son of man, son of David, Son of God - decended to the dead, risen Christ, who is seated at the right hand of the Father - for the redemption of the world and that includes you, believe it or not.