If Mary was the mother of God...

[sonettegarbin]

How? By the Holy Ghost !

[SIGN]God is Spirit. What is Spirit gives birth to spirit, what is flesh gives birth to flesh. The Spirit of God came from God. Not from Mary.

[/SIGN]

So either you do not believe that Jesus Christ was man or you do not believe in the resurrection of the body. Jesus was raised from the dead with the same body He was born with albeit a glorified body after His resurrection.

So which would it be?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

6 pags, this went on! whoo!! I want to point out two things:

1. Luke 1:41

But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

This is from scripture. To argue this point is to argue against scripture. I don’t think any of us are enlightened enough or holy enough to pass judgement on scripture.

1. All of us have a mother just as Jesus did. My body comes in part from my mother and in part from my father. My soul, however, is not created by them at all but rather by God.

Same with Jesus. He was fully man and fully God. His body came from Mary, just as my body came from my mother. Also, Jesus was fully God. Mary raised Christ, and was a mother to him. She nursed him, taught him, and cared for him.

 

[moondweller]

Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. .

The council employed the term “theotokos.” Literally it means, “God-bearer.” The emphasis being on the Person the woman bore, not the woman herself. It’s based on the Scriptures that state:John 1:1-14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men… And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."Men have corrupted the term “theotokos” by placing the emphasis on the woman (“Mother of God”), rather the Person she bore: “God-bearer.”

It falls in the spiritual principle Paul presented in Gal. 5:9: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” IOW, error begets error.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

The council employed the term “theotokos.” Literally it means, “God-bearer.” The emphasis being on the Person the woman bore, not the woman herself. It’s based on the Scriptures that state:John 1:1-14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men… And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."Men have corrupted the term “theotokos” by placing the emphasis on the woman (“Mother of God”), rather the Person she bore: “God-bearer.”

It falls in the spiritual principle Paul presented in Gal. 5:9: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” IOW, error begets error.

Good answer.

On the one hand, Going through these many replies…I am hearing from many that we must take scripture as it is and not add nor take away, on the other hand, I have difficulty understanding why then is the Bible insufficient for catholic living??? That’s like saying I can tell you what to add or take out, but you cannot.

Secondly, the ONLY person who called Mary using that ‘title’ is not even a prophet. Neither was the statement given as an instruction. It was a reference by Elizabeth who did not even use the word ‘God’…but ‘Lord’. Yet something so vague (if I may say so), can today become so conclusively decided to be biblical instruction.

Thirdly, although the answerers claim that Jesus is both fully man and fully God, none of them is willing to accept the 2 to be separable parts. Because I suppose, in so doing, Mary would not be at least a minor contributor to Jesus’ deity. Yet, many here agree that our bodies need to be ‘purged’ before final salvation.

I wonder if people see the confused arguments put forth. Twitching back & forth using situational reasonings only reveal the inability to grasp the truth.

If you claim to stick to biblical scripture word for word…dot for dot…Then show it in ALL of your works. Instructions by God and His prophets is not the same as recorded statements by people living in those times. The former is spiritual instruction, the latter is mere record. If it were not so, then Jesus would not need to rebuke so many of His disciples when they made mistakes (eg. Peter calling for Jesus not to be crucified, James & John calling for storm fire etc etc). If you need to purge a body to cleanse it because it is unclean, while the spirit remains clean but the spirit is the one that is being saved…what then are you showing?

 

[sixofseven]

The council employed the term “theotokos.” Literally it means, “God-bearer.” The emphasis being on the Person the woman bore, not the woman herself. It’s based on the Scriptures that state:John 1:1-14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men… And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."Men have corrupted the term “theotokos” by placing the emphasis on the woman (“Mother of God”), rather the Person she bore: “God-bearer.”

It falls in the spiritual principle Paul presented in Gal. 5:9: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” IOW, error begets error.

Does not the word bearer also mean mother?

Catholics agreed wholeheartedly with you - the emphasis is on the person she bore - she is the Mother of GOD - Mother of God/God-bearer - same thing!

Mary ALWAYS leads us and points us to her Son - and this title does the same, it points to Him as GOD.

Sure you agree with the following:
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Does not the word bearer also mean mother?

Catholics agreed wholeheartedly with you - the emphasis is on the person she bore - she is the Mother of GOD - Mother of God/God-bearer - same thing!

Mary ALWAYS leads us and points us to her Son - and this title does the same, it points to Him as GOD.

Sure you agree with the following:
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God

If bearer means mother, I’d be the mother of my wallet, mother of my watch, mother of my handphone.

.

 

[autdrew]

Im confused, you say that Catholics dont think the bible useful for daily living, yet when people use the scripture to point to an example of Mary being called the Mother of the Lord, you dismiss it as “Only” 1 person said it. Does that mean it is not valid? There are a lot of things in scripture said once but are considered valid, even things not specifically said are believed, such at the Trinity. But you have an actual person in scripture using the actual words Mother of my Lord, you dismiss it.
Jesus cannot be separated into parts. It has always been the teaching that he was fully God & fully man.He was not just a man walking the earth for 33 years. He is not just God who is the beginning & end. He chose to take on the characteristics of a man in the flesh, to dwell amongst us. I sure he could have just zapped himself here, fully formed man, but he didnt. He chose to be carried in the womb of a woman. To me, that is a pretty big deal.
Considering Jesus was a perfect, sinless man, he followed the 10 Commandments, including the honoring of parents. I do not want to stand before him on judgement day & have to answer the question of why I refuse to honor his mother & treat her decently, out of love for Him.
It takes nothing away from Jesus or God the Father or the Holy Spirit, to honor the 1 person in history, who has ever been given such an awesome gift. That tells me she must be pretty darn special to the Godhead & it would be disrespectful for me to degrade or dismiss her role in our salvation.
Just my 2 cents

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Im confused, you say that Catholics dont think the bible useful for daily living, yet when people use the scripture to point to an example of Mary being called the Mother of the Lord, you dismiss it as “Only” 1 person said it. Does that mean it is not valid? There are a lot of things in scripture said once but are considered valid, even things not specifically said are believed, such at the Trinity. But you have an actual person in scripture using the actual words Mother of my Lord, you dismiss it.
Jesus cannot be separated into parts. It has always been the teaching that he was fully God & fully man.He was not just a man walking the earth for 33 years. He is not just God who is the beginning & end. He chose to take on the characteristics of a man in the flesh, to dwell amongst us. I sure he could have just zapped himself here, fully formed man, but he didnt. He chose to be carried in the womb of a woman. To me, that is a pretty big deal.
Considering Jesus was a perfect, sinless man, he followed the 10 Commandments, including the honoring of parents. I do not want to stand before him on judgement day & have to answer the question of why I refuse to honor his mother & treat her decently, out of love for Him.
It takes nothing away from Jesus or God the Father or the Holy Spirit, to honor the 1 person in history, who has ever been given such an awesome gift. That tells me she must be pretty darn special to the Godhead & it would be disrespectful for me to degrade or dismiss her role in our salvation.
Just my 2 cents

This is a great post, thank you for sharing this.

 

[sixofseven]

If bearer means mother, I’d be the mother of my wallet, mother of my watch, mother of my handphone.

.

Which is why I said it ‘also’ means mother - she bore a son. You want to nitpick?..ok…

bear1    [bair] Show IPA verb, bore or ( Archaic ) bare; borne or born; bear·ing.
–verb (used with object)

1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
2. to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
   3. to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
3. to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
4. to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn’t bear close examination.
5. to press or push against: The crowd was borne back by the police.
6. to hold or carry (oneself, one’s body, one’s head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.
7. to conduct (oneself): to bear oneself bravely.
8. to suffer; endure; undergo: to bear the blame.
9. to sustain without yielding or suffering injury; tolerate (usually used in negative constructions, unless qualified): I can’t bear your nagging. I can hardly bear to see her suffering so.
10. to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn’t bear repeating.
11. to carry; bring: to bear gifts.
12. to carry in the mind or heart: to bear love; to bear malice.
13. to transmit or spread (gossip, tales, etc.).
14. to render; afford; give: to bear witness; to bear testimony.
15. to lead; guide; take: They bore him home.
16. to have and be entitled to: to bear title.
17. to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.
18. to accept or have, as an obligation: to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.
19. to stand in (a relation or ratio); have or show correlatively: the relation that price bears to profit.
20. to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription.
21. to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.
    –verb (used without object)
22. to tend in a course or direction; move; go: to bear west; to bear left at the fork in the road.
23. to be located or situated: The lighthouse bears due north.
24. to bring forth young or fruit: Next year the tree will bear.
    —Verb phrases
25. bear down,
    a. to press or weigh down.
    b. to strive harder; intensify one’s efforts: We can’t hope to finish unless everyone bears down.
    c. Nautical . to approach from windward, as a ship: The cutter was bearing down the channel at twelve knots.
26. bear down on / upon,
    a. to press or weigh down on.
    b. to strive toward.
    c. to approach something rapidly.
    d. Nautical . to approach (another vessel) from windward: The sloop bore down on us, narrowly missing our stern.
27. bear off,
    a. Nautical . to keep (a boat) from touching or rubbing against a dock, another boat, etc.
    b. Nautical . to steer away.
    c. Backgammon . to remove the stones from the board after they are all home.
28. bear on / upon, to affect, relate to, or have connection with; be relevant to: This information may bear on the case.
29. bear out, to substantiate; confirm: The facts bear me out.
30. bear up, to endure; face hardship bravely: It is inspiring to see them bearing up so well.
31. bear with, to be patient or forbearing with: Please bear with me until I finish the story.
    —Idiom
32. bring to bear, to concentrate on with a specific purpose: Pressure was brought to bear on those with overdue accounts.

Do you deny that Mary BORE a son and named Him Jesus?
Do you deny that Jesus is GOD?
For denying that Mary is the Mother of God is denying these two FACTS.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Im confused, you say that Catholics dont think the bible useful for daily living, yet when people use the scripture to point to an example of Mary being called the Mother of the Lord, you dismiss it as “Only” 1 person said it. Does that mean it is not valid? There are a lot of things in scripture said once but are considered valid, even things not specifically said are believed, such at the Trinity. But you have an actual person in scripture using the actual words Mother of my Lord, you dismiss it.
Jesus cannot be separated into parts. It has always been the teaching that he was fully God & fully man.He was not just a man walking the earth for 33 years. He is not just God who is the beginning & end. He chose to take on the characteristics of a man in the flesh, to dwell amongst us. I sure he could have just zapped himself here, fully formed man, but he didnt. He chose to be carried in the womb of a woman. To me, that is a pretty big deal.
Considering Jesus was a perfect, sinless man, he followed the 10 Commandments, including the honoring of parents. I do not want to stand before him on judgement day & have to answer the question of why I refuse to honor his mother & treat her decently, out of love for Him.
It takes nothing away from Jesus or God the Father or the Holy Spirit, to honor the 1 person in history, who has ever been given such an awesome gift. That tells me she must be pretty darn special to the Godhead & it would be disrespectful for me to degrade or dismiss her role in our salvation.
Just my 2 cents

Andrew,

Firstly I didn’t use the word ‘useful’. I said ‘insufficient’. Let’s not start a new thread within a thread.

Secondly, note the main focus. Instruction vs Record… The focus is not how many people said it, but WHO.

Thirdly, something that is not specifically said but yet believed is called extrapolation. Its certainly not obedience. People of our time call them smart alecs.

Of course Jesus was fully man. Didn’t you see my previous admission? The point is not whether Jesus was fully man, but whether Mary was a contributor to His deitihood (if not, she cannot be the mother of God) or just humanity and whether by being a ‘bearer’ can you convert it to mean ‘MOTHER’.

Great or not, that would be a separate topic. But we need first to quote accurately, and make valid references.

.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Do you deny that Mary BORE a son and named Him Jesus?
Do you deny that Jesus is GOD?
For denying that Mary is the Mother of God is denying these two FACTS.

Gosh…here we go again.

Jesus is God, but the conception of Jesus was by the Holy Ghost. Mary claimed herself a SERVANT.

• Luke 1:38 I am the Lord’s servant," Mary answered.

What you’re doing is telling Mary…“NO!..you’re not His servant!..You’re his mother!!!”. Think…If Mary could speak to you now…What do you think Mary will tell you?

.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Gosh…here we go again.

Jesus is God, but the conception of Jesus was by the Holy Ghost. Mary claimed herself a SERVANT.

• Luke 1:38 I am the Lord’s servant," Mary answered.

What you’re doing is telling Mary…“NO!..you’re not His servant!..You’re his mother!!!”. Think…If Mary could speak to you now…What do you think Mary will tell you?

.

If we asked the Blessed Virgin who her child was, she would say, “Jesus Christ, the Son of God and second person of the Blessed Trinity.”

If we then asked her, “Are you the mother of God?” She would say, “Yes, of course he is God.”

Because, clearly, her child is God.

Being the Lord’s servant does not preclude her from being the Lord’s mother (as Elizabeth proclaimed).

 

[sixofseven]

Gosh…here we go again.

Jesus is God, but the conception of Jesus was by the Holy Ghost. Mary claimed herself a SERVANT.

• Luke 1:38 I am the Lord’s servant," Mary answered.

What you’re doing is telling Mary…“NO!..you’re not His servant!..You’re his mother!!!”. Think…If Mary could speak to you now…What do you think Mary will tell you?

.

But as I said before - this isn’t about Mary - it’s about Christ! You are making this about her and her role - we are simply saying her title as Mother of God is nothing to do with her “productiveness” and everything to do with the nature of her Son.

Of course she is His servant! That doesn’t mean she isn’t His mother! She is His servant because of His deity.

I am His servant because of my faith in His deity, does that mean that I cannot be His sister because of my Baptism?

Mary told us in John 2:5 “Do whatever He tells you”

She ALWAYS points us to Him, this isn’t about her.

 

[moondweller]

Thirdly, although the answerers claim that Jesus is both fully man and fully God, none of them is willing to accept the 2 to be separable parts. Because I suppose, in so doing, Mary would not be at least a minor contributor to Jesus’ deity. Yet, many here agree that our bodies need to be ‘purged’ before final salvation.

The problem lies in people’s misunderstanding of the hypostatic union. Jesus was one Person with two natures. He was at once fully man and fully God. God the Son through the incarnation took on true humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ. But His divinity did not take on humanity, nor did His humanity take on divinity. In body, soul and spirit (His humanity) He was fully man. IOW, in the Theanthropic Man the two natures did not blend. Else His humanity was not truly human, nor His divinity truly divine.

Mary cannot be “the mother of God.” The creature cannot give birth to the Creator. The Infinite has no mother, and certainly not a finite one.

I wonder if people see the confused arguments put forth. Twitching back & forth using situational reasonings only reveal the inability to grasp the truth.

As I said, the problem arose when men corrupted the term “theotokos,” (God-bearer). Placing the emphasis on the woman rather than the Person she bore. The Council of Ephesus convened not to define the motherhood of Mary, but to confirm the deity of Christ - according to the Scriptures. This whole “mother of God” idea is the result of the introduction of leaven (error), You see how error permeates and grows and the truth becomes totally obscured.

 

[moondweller]

Does not the word bearer also mean mother?

Catholics agreed wholeheartedly with you - the emphasis is on the person she bore - she is the Mother of GOD - Mother of God/God-bearer - same thing!

“God-bearer” is not “mother of God.” The difference is subtle but infinitely different in meaning, emphasis and significance.

 

[LilyM]

If bearer means mother, I’d be the mother of my wallet, mother of my watch, mother of my handphone.

.

Well, if you bore these things in the sense of giving birth to them, maybe.

 

[WetCatechumen]

The problem lies in people’s misunderstanding of the hypostatic union. Jesus was one Person with two natures. He was at once fully man and fully God. God the Son through the incarnation took on true humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ. But His divinity did not take on humanity, nor did His humanity take on divinity. In body, soul and spirit (His humanity) He was fully man. IOW, in the Theanthropic Man the two natures did not blend. Else His humanity was not truly human, nor His divinity truly divine.

Mary cannot be “the mother of God.” The creature cannot give birth to the Creator. The Infinite has no mother, and certainly not a finite one.As I said, the problem arose when men corrupted the term “theotokos,” (God-bearer). Placing the emphasis on the woman rather than the Person she bore. The Council of Ephesus convened not to define the motherhood of Mary, but to confirm the deity of Christ - according to the Scriptures. This whole “mother of God” idea is the result of the introduction of leaven (error), You see how error permeates and grows and the truth becomes totally obscured.

All things were made through Jesus Christ. He was born of Mary. The creator was born of a creature. Your whole premise is that “a created being cannot give birth to an uncreated being.” That’s patently false; the Incarnation proves that. However, “give birth to” or “be the Mother of” does not necessarily imply the ultimate origin of someone.

Clearly, the ultimate origin of Jesus Christ is before all ages, of the Father. However, he entered into human history and became a man, a man with a mother.

 

[WetCatechumen]

“God-bearer” is not “mother of God.” The difference is subtle but infinitely different in meaning, emphasis and significance.

When they say “bearer” they meant, “one who carried God in her womb and gave birth to him.”

The English word which most aptly expresses this is “mother”.

 

[LilyM]

However, “give birth to” or “be the Mother of” does not necessarily imply the ultimate origin of someone.

Surrogacy proves that.

IVF, and cryogenic preservation of eggs and embryos, has been around for decades now. Nearly long enough that we might well have a situation where women will be surrogates to embryos that were conceived and frozen before the mother herself was born. In other words baby is technically older than Mommy. :whacky:

So THAT part of Rumpel’s argument doesn’t hold water at least.

 

[moondweller]

All things were made through Jesus Christ. He was born of Mary. The creator was born of a creature. Your whole premise is that “a created being cannot give birth to an uncreated being.” That’s patently false; the Incarnation proves that. However, “give birth to” or “be the Mother of” does not necessarily imply the ultimate origin of someone.

Clearly, the ultimate origin of Jesus Christ is before all ages, of the Father. However, he entered into human history and became a man, a man with a mother.

The MAN Jesus Christ did not exist before the incarnation. God the Son, second Person of the Trinity, however, did.