If Mary was the mother of God...

[Bill_Pick]

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

Serious answers only please.

Can Jesus build a brick ao so big that Jesus can not move it,You get my point

 

[LilyM]

Being servant of god and mother of god are different issues; they are not connected.

You can be slave of a future emperor and still be the father of that emperor.

The one who who started this thread is being ridiculous

History contains examples of Emperors who have successfully deposed their fathers, thus making the father slave of the son.

By the way - a servant is not normally a slave. A slave, it seems to me, is usually one who is forced into obedience or service rather than willingly accepting it. Those African Americans, for example, weren’t out in the fields picking cotton or in the house cooking and cleaning because they wanted to be there, but rather because they had been bought and sold for the purpose, and could be whipped or killed if they tried to run away.

Mary was indeed the servant of her own son and God, while losing nothing of her motherly status. Most mothers would say the description of ‘servant’ applies - what else is washing diapers, wiping snotty noses, ferrying the child around to sports and staying up all night with them when they’re ill, if not servanthood? Even, perhaps, a form of slavery?

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

History contains examples of Emperors who have successfully deposed their fathers, thus making the father slave of the son.

By the way - a servant is not normally a slave. A slave, it seems to me, is usually one who is forced into obedience or service rather than willingly accepting it. Those African Americans, for example, weren’t out in the fields picking cotton or in the house cooking and cleaning because they wanted to be there, but rather because they had been bought and sold for the purpose, and could be whipped or killed if they tried to run away.

Mary was indeed the servant of her own son and God, while losing nothing of her motherly status. Most mothers would say the description of ‘servant’ applies - what else is washing diapers, wiping snotty noses, ferrying the child around to sports and staying up all night with them when they’re ill, if not servanthood? Even, perhaps, a form of slavery?

Let’s summarise.

1 - Mary called herself a SERVANT of God.
2 - Elizabeth called Mary the ‘Mother of my Lord’
3 –God existed before Mary

From 1, we know Mary saw herself in a lowly & humbled position in reference to God.

From 2, we know that Elizabeth never called Mary the ‘Mother of God’. Moreover, it was never an instruction from God to refer to Mary the ‘Mother of God’, it was merely an exclamation by a character in the Bible, which like many other characters are subject to God’s judgement.

From 3, we know that Mary came about because of God and not vice versa.

It is therefore only logical & right to conclude that calling Mary the mother of God is wrong.

.

 

[moondweller]

Let’s summarise.

1 - Mary called herself a SERVANT of God.
2 - Elizabeth called Mary the ‘Mother of my Lord’
3 –God existed before Mary

From 1, we know Mary saw herself in a lowly & humbled position in reference to God.

From 2, we know that Elizabeth never called Mary the ‘Mother of God’. Moreover, it was never an instruction from God to refer to Mary the ‘Mother of God’, it was merely an exclamation by a character in the Bible, which like many other characters are subject to God’s judgement.

From 3, we know that Mary came about because of God and not vice versa.

It is therefore only logical & right to conclude that calling Mary the mother of God is wrong.

.

And of course “theotokos” literally means “God-bearer,” not “God’s mother.”

 

[WetCatechumen]

And of course “theotokos” literally means “God-bearer,” not “God’s mother.”

Um, no. “Bearer” is an explicit way to refer to the physicality of Mary’s motherhood.

She “bore” God in that she conceived him, carried him for 40 weeks, and gave birth to him.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Actually, I said just the opposite. The MAN Christ Jesus came into existence at a certain point of time, via the incarnation. Whereas the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, transcends time, being eternal. No “man” spoke the universe into existence.No it isn’t. But what you’re espousing is a form of Monothelitism, that the human and divine natures in Christ were fused together.The Council of Chalcedon declared that Christ had two natures. The Council of Constantinople declared that He had two wills, his human will being subject to His divine will. As for Mary, she had nothing at all to do with His Divine nature. She cannot be the "mother of God."Scripture states differently:Luke 1:31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.”

John 1:1-2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God…And the Word became flesh,"He did not “add” humanity to His divinity, nor was Divinity “added” to His humanity. The two natures were not blended. He was “fully” human and “fully” Divine.When you attribute that title to her you corrupt what the Council of Ephesus originally intended by the term: “God-bearer.”

Monothelitism is the belief that Christ had a single will. I am orthodox; therefore, I believe that he had a divine will and a human will.

I have miaphysite leanings, but miaphysistism is clearly orthodox, although Eutycheanism is clearly heresy.

If Jesus Christ is the God-man, then Mary is the Mother of the God-man. She is therefore the mother of a man and the Mother of God. If you say, “She is only the mother of the man,” then you have said that there is no God-man, only God and a man, which is Nestorianism.

 

[LilyM]

Let’s summarise.

1 - Mary called herself a SERVANT of God.
2 - Elizabeth called Mary the ‘Mother of my Lord’
3 –God existed before Mary

From 1, we know Mary saw herself in a lowly & humbled position in reference to God.

From 2, we know that Elizabeth never called Mary the ‘Mother of God’. Moreover, it was never an instruction from God to refer to Mary the ‘Mother of God’, it was merely an exclamation by a character in the Bible, which like many other characters are subject to God’s judgement.

From 3, we know that Mary came about because of God and not vice versa.

It is therefore only logical & right to conclude that calling Mary the mother of God is wrong.

.

From 1 we know no such thing at all. Mothers can be in very lowly and humbled positions vis a vis their children and nonetheless remain their mothers. I’m sure Oprah Winfrey’s mother is in complete awe of her daughter - and is certainly incomparably her lowly and humble inferior in terms of money, status, influence and achievements. Does this relative extreme lowliness and humility of Oprah’s mother’s position mean she ceases to be Oprah’s mother? The idea is entirely illogical.

We ALSO know from scripture that Christ was ALSO, at least in His youth, in a very lowly and humbled position vis-a-vis Mary and Joseph. ‘He went with them to Nazareth and was subject and obedient to them’. In this sense was HE also not a servant to them? Certainly a very humble position, as is fitting for a teenage boy in regards His mother and foster-father.

More than that - He chose to humble Himself on other occasions, such as stooping to wash the Apostles’ feet, which Peter viewed as TOO humble and lowly a thing for the God-Man to do and begged Him not to. What was Christ’s reply? ‘Whoever would be greatest of all must be last of all and servant of all’. And He certainly lived that attitude out in His own life.

So did Mary - her Magnificat is ALL ABOUT how God exalts the lowly and raises the humble - and smashes the proud. How could she talk like this unless she felt that she herself had become exalted by her status as Christ’s mother? Of course she attributed none of the glory to herself, but to God who wrought the miracle. Nonetheless, glory and exaltation there certainly was for her, and she claims it in the Magnificat.

So the idea that humility and lowliness are incompatible with being a great human being is utter bunkum - they aren’t even incompatible with being GOD!!!

 

[moondweller]

If Jesus Christ is the God-man, then Mary is the Mother of the God-man. She is therefore the mother of a man and the Mother of God. If you say, “She is only the mother of the man,” then you have said that there is no God-man, only God and a man, which is Nestorianism.

I say no such thing. Theotokos literally means “God-bearer,” not “God’s mother.” The emphasis being not on the woman but Deity of the Child she bore.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I say no such thing. Theotokos literally means “God-bearer,” not “God’s mother.” The emphasis being not on the woman but Deity of the Child she bore.

MD, we don’t need people to agree with what we say, only that they realize the obligation to comply with what is written for instruction in calling themselves followers.

 

[moondweller]

MD, we don’t need people to agree with what we say, only that they realize the obligation to comply with what is written for instruction in calling themselves followers.

Yes, and “not to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

 

[WetCatechumen]

I say no such thing. Theotokos literally means “God-bearer,” not “God’s mother.” The emphasis being not on the woman but Deity of the Child she bore.

“God-bearer” does not mean “one who holds God”. It means “one who conceives God, carries him in her womb, and gives birth to.”

 

[moondweller]

“God-bearer” does not mean “one who holds God”. It means “one who conceives God, carries him in her womb, and gives birth to.”

It means to give birth. “God-bearer,” not “mother of God.” The emphasis on the Deity of the Child she bore. Not once in Scripture is Mary referred to as “the mother of God,” or “the spouse of the Holy Spirit.” “Mother of God” is a corrupt interpretation of theotokos, spawning many extrabiblical Marian dogmas which men, subsequently, introduced into Christianity. But the Christianity revealed to us in the Scriptures is not a mother/son religion.

 

[LilyM]

It means to give birth. “God-bearer,” not “mother of God.”

Yes, it means to give birth. And that is EXACTLY what mothering someone ALSO means! And that’s EXACTLY what Mary did - mother Jesus. Mother GOD MADE FLESH - unless you believe that Jesus was at any point after His conception NOT God made flesh?

One who gives birth! The exact definition of MOTHER!!!

A surrogate mother doesn’t raise the child. Some surrogates didn’t even create the child they bear. Some birth mothers give their children out for fostering and also don’t raise them.Yet they nonethless earn the title mother precisely because they gave birth.

I really don’t get the problem. God pre-existed Mary? So what! There are probably frozen eggs and embryos out there at the moment that are older than women who could right now choose to have them implanted - and thus give birth to (MOTHER) people who pre-existed them.

God is greater and more powerful than Mary? Of course, who denies it? Not I. Numerous children exceed their parents immeasurably in greatness and power.

Mary called herself God’s servant? Yes, and Jesus (God incarnate) said He also came not to be served but to serve, and also that the greatest of all is the last of all and servant of all. He is a God who delights in exalting the lowly. Great exaltation and great lowliness and humility are perfectly compatible - in fact in the Kingdom of Heaven the greater the lowliness the greater the exaltation as well.

Are you implying that Catholicism IS a mother-son religion? That we view Mary as divine - a goddess? Or give her equal standing with the Holy Trinity or anything like? If so we’d be open about it - for to be less than open would be to offend our immortal goddess, no? What worshipper denies that they worship, even in private, if they truly believe in the divinity of the one they worship?

If Catholicism were a mother-son religion why don’t we baptise our children ‘In the name of the Father, of Mother Mary, the Son and the Holy Spirit’? Why don’t we mention this fabulous equality of Mary’s in our creed? In our prayers at Mass - not a single one of which are directed to Mary, by the way.

Why don’t we claim that it is MARY’s body and blood we are drinking and eating to our salvation? Why don’t we have a dogma of the Quadrinity instead of a Trinity, of which we in no fashion acknowledge Mary to be equal, but always and ever call her the greatest of God’s creatures.

 

[campeador]

From 2, we know that Elizabeth never called Mary the ‘Mother of God’. Moreover, it was never an instruction from God to refer to Mary the ‘Mother of God’, it was merely an exclamation by a character in the Bible, which like many other characters are subject to God’s judgement.

These are the words of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41-43):

…and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?

The Holy Spirit calls Mary the mother of the Lord.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Yes, it means to give birth. And that is EXACTLY what mothering someone ALSO means! And that’s EXACTLY what Mary did - mother Jesus. Mother GOD MADE FLESH - unless you believe that Jesus was at any point after His conception NOT God made flesh?

One who gives birth! The exact definition of MOTHER!!!

A surrogate mother doesn’t raise the child. Some surrogates didn’t even create the child they bear. Some birth mothers give their children out for fostering and also don’t raise them.Yet they nonethless earn the title mother precisely because they gave birth.

I really don’t get the problem. God pre-existed Mary? So what! There are probably frozen eggs and embryos out there at the moment that are older than women who could right now choose to have them implanted - and thus give birth to (MOTHER) people who pre-existed them.

God is greater and more powerful than Mary? Of course, who denies it? Not I. Numerous children exceed their parents immeasurably in greatness and power.

Mary called herself God’s servant? Yes, and Jesus (God incarnate) said He also came to be served, and also that the greatest of all is the last of all and servant of all. He is a God who delights in exalting the lowly.

Are you implying that Catholicism IS a mother-son religion? That we view Mary as divine - a goddess? Or give her equal standing with the Holy Trinity or anything like? If so we’d be open about it - for to be less than open would be to offend our immortal goddess, no? What worshipper denies that they worship, even in private, if they truly believe in the divinity of the one they worship?

If Catholicism were a mother-son religion why don’t we begin and end our prayers ‘In the name of the Father, of Mother Mary, the Son and the Holy Spirit’? Why don’t we mention this fabulous equality of Mary’s in our creed? Why don’t we claim that it is MARY’s body and blood we are drinking and eating to our salvation? Why don’t we have a dogma of the Quadrinity instead of a Trinity, of which we in no fashion acknowledge Mary to be equal, but always and ever call her the greatest of God’s creatures.

Because God has no mother.

 

[LilyM]

Because God has no mother.

I like the way you think - ‘if I repeat my thought in a larger font and different colour then that’ll make it true’.

God not only has a mother (couldn’t avoid it once He chose to become flesh and be born of woman), He made Himself obedient and subject to her in his teenage years in Nazareth. More than that, God also made Himself subject and obedient to His foster-father Joseph.

You’ve offered not a shred of proof that God, becoming Man and being of woman born, didn’t take on a mother along with all the other limitations that His humanity imposed upon Him. Might as well say ‘God doesn’t have a body’. It’s not an argument, it’s merely an assertion with no evidence to back it up.

Well, Jesus became Man, Jesus is God, so yes He does! Has a body, a mother, a foster-father and lots of other things that go along with being human.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I like the way you think - ‘if I repeat my thought in a larger font and different colour then that’ll make it true’.

God not only has a mother, He made Himself obedient and subject to her in his teenage years in Nazareth. More than that, God also made Himself subject and obedient to His foster-father Joseph.

I like the way you think too. Those simple words are meant not just for you, but for everyone else. What is true remains true, even if I say “Truly, Truly, I say to you…”, it still doesn’t make it true-er or less true does it? Yet, why did Jesus speak that way? Because He wanted to drill those simple words into people.

If God has a mother, then that mother would be the beginning or the Alpha, not God Himself. And that, for your knowledge directly translates into blasphemy.

.

 

[LilyM]

I like the way you think too. Those simple words are meant not just for you, but for everyone else. What is true remains true, even if I say “Truly, Truly, I say to you…”, it still doesn’t make it true-er or less true does it? Yet, why did Jesus speak that way? Because He wanted to drill those simple words into people.

If God has a mother, then that mother would be the beginning or the Alpha, not God Himself. And that, for your knowledge directly translates into blasphemy.

.

And error is error, no matter how you speak it.

And there is no question but that you are speaking error. God,and God alone, is the beginning or Alpha of ALL creatures, but especially of ALL children, all human life.

Because it is He and He alone who gives the babe a soul, the most essential and final component of its humanity.

Even though this is the case, that God is in fact the Alpha of all human beings, not their mothers, every woman who bears and/or raises a child is accorded the status of mother. And, by divine commandment no less, every mother is accorded a special level of honour that we are commanded to give to few if any other people in our lives.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

And error is error, no matter how you speak it.

And there is no question but that you are speaking error. God,and God alone, is the beginning or Alpha of ALL creatures, but especially of ALL children, all human life.

Because it is He and He alone who gives the babe a soul, the most essential and final component of its humanity.

Even though this is the case, that God is in fact the Alpha of all human beings, not their mothers, every woman who bears and/or raises a child is accorded the status of mother. And, by divine commandment no less, every mother is accorded a special level of honour that we are commanded to give to few if any other people in our lives.

According honor at the expense of diminishing the omnipotence of God and on pretext of ‘divine commandment’…is not ‘Special’, its WRONG.

If God has a mother, He would not be God.

.

 

[campeador]

If God has a mother, He would not be God.

Then why did the Holy Spirit call Mary “the Mother of the Lord”?