If you do Not believe that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, than who do you believe Jesus Christ is?

[Daegus]

Mary is the mother of God because the person, Jesus Christ is God. Separating Jesus into two natures to attribute only the human to Mary would create two persons. Humans do not give birth to natures but to persons. Because Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ she is the mother of God.

Just so that I can understand. When we say that the person, Jesus Christ suffered, died and was buried. Do we say that in the hypostatic union He suffered, died and was buried, or in His human nature, or only in His body?

Jesus’ human nature did not suffer from anything because He was free from sin. His physical, tangible body suffered and died for our sins.

If humans only give birth to persons and they cannot be split to define Mary’s contribution to Christ’s being then why is the same rule not applied when defining His death?

You can’t just create this false dichotomy where you separate a person from their nature. Since Mary contributed to creating the flesh of Jesus, she contributed to His human nature. Just like Howard Stern doesn’t lay goose eggs, Mary does not give birth to natures. She gives birth to people who have natures. I also don’t understand the second part of this question. Are you saying that Jesus’ death somehow caused a separation of His natures?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I wonder how Jesus feels about the derogatory manner that has been used by some in reference to His Mother.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Jesus’ human nature did not suffer from anything because He was free from sin. His physical, tangible body suffered and died for our sins.

You can’t just create this false dichotomy where you separate a person from their nature. Since Mary contributed to creating the flesh of Jesus, she contributed to His human nature. Just like Howard Stern doesn’t lay goose eggs, Mary does not give birth to natures. She gives birth to people who have natures. I also don’t understand the second part of this question. Are you saying that Jesus’ death somehow caused a separation of His natures?

When Jesus said, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death.” Didn’t He suffer in His “human nature”? Wasn’t the passible and mortal properties of His nature separable from the Divine? Why is it allowed to separate the “person” Jesus Christ in His death and not in His birth?

 

[benedictus2]

then logically is this true?

1. Herod /Pilate/ the Romans killed Jesus.
2. Jesus is God

so therefore
3) Herod /Pilate/ the Romans killed God.

Is the above true or not? did the Romans kill God?

The Second Person of the Trinity died. Yes, He did. Is that not what we say, that Jesus died?

But here’s the problem with your reasoning: When we die, everyone acknowledges that it is our physical body that dies, not our soul. So yes, Jesus’s physical body died, not that the human Jesus died, because Jesus is more than the physical body.

But when our mothers conceive us, we do not say our mother conceived our physical body, we say that our mother conceived our entire person, body and soul.

Conception after all is how God creates, eternal souls.

When we say Joe Smith died, everyone who acknowledges the existence of a soul know that the person Joe Smith did not die, but that his physical body has died.

Now, if you are an atheist and believe that the person is just his physical body then that is different. But then you would still be wrong because a person is more than just a body. But that is for another thread.

 

[benedictus2]

I have already said that Jesus IS God in human form, but for Mary to be the mother of the actual GOD in the SKY, then she would of had to of created GOD, and she did NOT.

Okay, that is a really ill thought statement.

Do you say when you conceive that you have created your baby. Are you the creator of your children. If you say you are then you really need to take a reality check, because that is a delusion.

Mary is the Mother of God but saying so does not mean that she created him any more than you (if you are a woman) created your children.

She created a human. I am a woman, I can create a human being inside me too!

Sigh. The ill thought post continues.

**You did not create your babies. If God decided that you will be barren, no matter how hard you try no baby will come forth. **

If we are the creators, then there would not be many frustrated, grieving childless couples in the world.

Reality check Blueshadow. Reality check.

 

[benedictus2]

A couple responses.

** 1, Traditional Christian belief is that Christ had two natures, one divine, the other human**. Why isn’t it sufficient to regard Mary as the mother of Christ’s humanity? This would not make her the mother of God but the mother of Jesus, the man. That strikes me as more logical, reasonable, and Biblical.

Because Traditional Christian belief says that is Nestorian Heresy. Google what that means.

** 2. I do not defend the sinners’ prayer, which is promoted mainly among evangelical Protestants**.

Good.

**

1. The gospels only mention Mary twice between the journey to Jerusalem (when Jesus was 12) until the crucifixion.

**
Which is beside the point. Your reasoning was that Paul did not mention Mary (except that you got that wrong too, because he did) Gal 4:5
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.

The whole point of your argument was that Paul did not mention Mary but what does that matter when the Gospels, the Gospels mind you, mentioned her.

So the point of my reply is that your argument is useless.

** 4. I’ve always found it odd that in detailing Jesus’ lineage we find these three pecularities**: (a) his ancestry is traced through Joseph - who is not the father - and not through Mary; (b) the two genealogies disagree enormously - check them out: Matt, 1 and Luke 3; (c) if we take the genealogy seriously, especially in Luke that claims to go all the way back to Adam, Adam must have been created about 4000 BC. Verifiable science plus recorded history both clearly disprove this. For all those Christians who rely upon the Bible as the irrefutable and inerrant Word of God, inspired by God, this should be a critical problem.

So what is your point here?

** As stated many times, I believe it wise to let Christians have leeway when it comes to doctrine**.

Meism. That’s your religion. You are obviously a relativist.**

Let us work to make religion a bridge instead of a barrier.

**But it is a bridge. Many have found the fullness of truth, crossed it and so became Catholic.

 

[benedictus2]

Honestly, Mormonish?.. The BVM gave birth to our Lord GOD, as Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of God” when she says: “How can the mother of my Lord (Greek: kuriou; Heb: Adonai; Latin Vulgate: Domini) come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
It seems to me that you are still having troubles with your idea of the “Theotokos”. Mary is not just the mother of Christ human nature, (as in the two natures of Jesus) mothers are mother’s of person’s, not natures.

I guess when Mary prophesied “all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48), she didn’t have you in mind. I also believe that the whole demi-goddess thing is a far stretch from the truth - but I won’t address it in this thread.

So the idea of original sin doesn’t really fit well into your idea of what a Just God should be like? Heck… in your opinion the whole story is a myth anyhow. So I won’t discuss original sin in this thread.

Being a Traditional Roman Catholic - you seem to know my opinion of this situation, while I sure wish that they would stay in a Catholic parish - it grieves me not, to see them go if they tend to spread a liberal “progressive” theology. That IS my opinion.
My hope and faith in the future of Christ Church are in what Jesus said to Kephas in Matt. 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

God be with you.

Brilliant! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[roveau]

I don’t think too many Christians would argue that Mary isn’t the mother of God. But as the Church teaches, she is the mother of God on the understanding that she is the mother of Jesus Christ. She is not the Mother of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. How this works out with our understanding of the Trinity is a Divine Mystery.

 

[tester]

Equivocation: The same word is used with two different meanings.

Did Columbus discover America?
(depends on the meaning of the words “discover” and “America”)

Is Mary the Mother of God?
(depends on the meaning of the words “mother” and “God”)

Let me say right off : I as a Protestant I agree with the concept of Theotokos.

But,I am sure we are all aware that single word concepts do not always translate well into other languages.

Example “logos” in John chapter 1 : which means much more than "the word”.

*The English term Mother of God is mostly used as an imprecise translation of Theotokos, and frequently requires explanation *–wiki

In the same way: Theotokos means much more than Mother of God.

Advice to Catholic apologists: because the word “mother” carries certain implications and the word “God” may mean different things; it would go better to explain the concept of Theotokos than continue to hammer away with the imprecise translation of “Mother of God”.

Consider your audience: I would never use the phrase “cleansed by the blood of Christ” to someone un-churched. (Can you imagine how bizarre that must sound to un-churched ears?).
It is phrase for a concept that would require additional explanation: it would be better to just explain the concept.

In the same way Protestants feel the phrase “Mother of God” somehow conflicts with the pre-existence of Christ. (if Christ is an eternal diety, creator of all; don’t you see how bizarre the phrase “Mother of God” is to Protestant ears?)

Many of you have over a 1000 posts on CAF ; so you must be aware of that perception:

Once again consider the audience and consider my advice for what it is worth.

 

[Daegus]

When Jesus said, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death.” Didn’t He suffer in His “human nature”? Wasn’t the passible and mortal properties of His nature separable from the Divine? Why is it allowed to separate the “person” Jesus Christ in His death and not in His birth?

This is what I’m confused about. Why are you reading things that aren’t there? If the passage does not say that His human nature suffered, why would you assume that? On top of that it seems like you’re very hellbent on trying to separate Jesus’ human nature from His divine nature. If you want to fall into the Nestorian heresy then that’s your problem.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sounds like conflicting thoughts to me.

[Theotokos means much more than Mother of God.]

No problem with this thought process. Many Catholics actually use the term. Yet Mother of God is part of Catholic history? And so?

[In the same way Protestants feel the phrase “Mother of God” somehow conflicts with the pre-existence of Christ. (if Christ is an eternal diety, creator of all; don’t you see how bizarre the phrase “Mother of God” is to Protestant ears?)]

No I fail to see how Mother of God conficts with pre-existence of Christ? Christ didn’t pre-exist, God did. Mary was told what the babys name would be and she named the baby Jesus. “An he ‘will be’ called Jesus”. The terminology isn’t “His name ‘is’ Jesus” You have be clearer here. I believe you are confused in catholic teaching. Who exactly do you think raised Jesus Christ? Who was His Mother? Was His mother not Mary? Mary “is” the Biological Mother of Jesus Christ. So I fail to see this logic, but would love to hear it explained? There was no Jesus Christ before Mary. Mary bore Jesus Christ. God existed before Christ thus we reach the Trinity or the Father Son and the Holy Spirit. There was no Son before Mary! There was God and the Holy Spirit before Christ? No?

[Advice to Catholic apologists: because the word “mother” carries certain implications and the word “God” may mean different things; it would go better to explain the concept of Theotokos than continue to hammer away with the imprecise translation of “Mother of God”.]

Catholics aren’t bound by terminology and are free to use the term “Theotokos” and many do. God and the terminology to explain “God” is in Catholic Catechism. I fail to see how “Theotokos” explains your above conflict about God/Jesus or the Father and the Son better? You’ll have to enlighten me?

[Once again consider the audience and consider my advice for what it is worth.]

Well noted! BTW you are that audience!

 

[tester]

…
No I fail to see how Mother of God conficts with pre-existence of Christ? Christ didn’t pre-exist, God did. Mary was told what the babys name would be and she named the baby Jesus. “An he ‘will be’ called Jesus”. The terminology isn’t “His name ‘is’ Jesus” You have be clearer here. I believe you are confused in catholic teaching. Who exactly do you think raised Jesus Christ? Who was His Mother? Was His mother not Mary? Mary “is” the Biological Mother of Jesus Christ. So I fail to see this logic, but would love to hear it explained? There was no Jesus Christ before Mary. Mary bore Jesus Christ. God existed before Christ thus we reach the Trinity or the Father Son and the Holy Spirit. There was no Son before Mary! There was God and the Holy Spirit before Christ? No?

:

Absolutly incorrect: and I would expect Catholics to correct Gary on this.

 

[Rocket_Man]

This is what I’m confused about. Why are you reading things that aren’t there? If the passage does not say that His human nature suffered, why would you assume that? On top of that it seems like you’re very hellbent on trying to separate Jesus’ human nature from His divine nature. If you want to fall into the Nestorian heresy then that’s your problem.

I’m reading from ARTICLE IV of the Catechism of Trent found here:catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed04.shtml

“Although human nature was united to the Divine Person, He felt the bitterness of His Passion as acutely as if no such union had existed” because in the one Person of Jesus Christ were preserved the properties of both natures" human and divine; and therefore what was passible and mortal remained passible and mortal; while what was impassible and immortal, that is, His Divine Nature, continued impassible and immortal."

Regarding the Nestorian heresy, why is it not allowed to say that Mary was the mother of the “human nature” of Christ in birth without making Jesus two persons but in death the CC then divides the person to define the suffering and is allowed the same without heresy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is what I’m confused about. Why are you reading things that aren’t there? If the passage does not say that His human nature suffered, why would you assume that? On top of that it seems like you’re very hellbent on trying to separate Jesus’ human nature from His divine nature. If you want to fall into the Nestorian heresy then that’s your problem.

I have been following this conversation also. BTW I agree with you.

What I don’t understand is how one arrives at a division of Human Nature and Divinity? Where in the Bible are you reading from? I assume you are reaching this conclusion from a Bible passage? Or some teaching? A seperation of human nature and divinity of Christ is absolutely impossible. The entire purpose of God coming to Earth as Christ was that He humbled, “he decended” to a Human level for a concrete purpose. When this happened through Mary, we now have the “Son of God” which didn’t exist prior. God is not human, Jesus Christ is/was. That humanity remains as is to be accurate in the Judgement of Man and of course His purpose on earth was predestined and resulted in the Cross.

Where did He leave His Human Nature? So as the divine Son of God he now has NO human feelings in your humble opinion?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m reading from ARTICLE IV of the Catechism of Trent found here:catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed04.shtml

Regarding the Nestorian heresy, why is it not allowed to say that Mary was the mother of the “human nature” of Christ in birth without making Jesus two persons but in death the CC then divides the person to define the suffering and is allowed the same without heresy.

“The CC then divided the person to define the suffering”? How, where did this seperation happen? Listen you may have a valid point I’m totally missing?

 

[Rocket_Man]

“The CC then divided the person to define the suffering”? How, where did this seperation happen? Listen you may have a valid point I’m totally missing?

Sorry, I added the following after you commented…

“Although human nature was united to the Divine Person, He felt the bitterness of His Passion as acutely as if no such union had existed” because in the one Person of Jesus Christ were preserved the properties of both natures" human and divine; and therefore what was passible and mortal remained passible and mortal; while what was impassible and immortal, that is, His Divine Nature, continued impassible and immortal."

 

[GaryTaylor]

The last paragraph would be a referrence to Christs words on the Cross. Specifically Christ in His human feelings that His Father had forsaken Him? And Jesus makes this comment on the Cross.

Rightfully so, I’m sure He suffered more than anyone would ever know.

But I’m not understanding where the human nature is left behind and only the Divinity moves foward?

[human and divine; and therefore what was passible and mortal remained passible and mortal; while what was impassible and immortal, that is, His Divine Nature, continued impassible and immortal.]

What was passible and mortal “remained” passible and mortal. So Christ still has this quality He doesn’t leave it behind. Remained means it remained with Him, not on earth when He left from the Cross.

His divine nature continued impassible and immortal. Correct, but this also was happening here on Earth. He didn’t become devine when He left Earth from the Cross. He was Divine and from the Presentation to the Wedding of Cana, the Nativity, the Conception through Mary “Annunciation” all of this shows Christs Divinity?

I believe theres just a misconception here. Or where you taught this?

 

[tester]

No I fail to see how Mother of God conficts with pre-existence of Christ? Christ didn’t pre-exist, God did. Mary was told what the babys name would be and she named the baby Jesus. “An he ‘will be’ called Jesus”. The terminology isn’t “His name ‘is’ Jesus” You have be clearer here. I believe you are confused in catholic teaching. Who exactly do you think raised Jesus Christ? Who was His Mother? Was His mother not Mary? Mary “is” the Biological Mother of Jesus Christ. So I fail to see this logic, but would love to hear it explained? There was no Jesus Christ before Mary. Mary bore Jesus Christ. God existed before Christ thus we reach the Trinity or the Father Son and the Holy Spirit. There was no Son before Mary! There was God and the Holy Spirit before Christ? No?

:

Actually it is Gary who is confused with Catholic teaching

allow me to correct his false statements:

"God existed before Christ "

"Christ didn’t pre-exist, "

“There was no Son before Mary! There was God and the Holy Spirit before Christ? No?”

catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp

The Eternal Sonship of Christ

“The Church Fathers who wrote the creeds had a different view. They recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.”

wow Gary , over a thousand posts and you didn’t know that?


wow Catholics: no one corrected him on that?

 

[jlhargus]

Absolutly incorrect: and I would expect Catholics to correct Gary on this.

JL: The way he has worded the last sentence sounds as though he is saying there was no Trinity (Son) before Christ was born, that would be incorrect. That’s what I thought the first time I read it anyway. I don’t think that’s what he is saying. maybe he will clarify his point.

Mary Mother of God was defined because some were saying God did not REALLY BECOME A MAN, but only inhabited a body of a man, which would mean God did not REALLY BECOME A MAN, only appeared as a man. To deny Mary is Mother of God, who really BECAME MAN is to deny God REALLY BECAME MAN. Mary is Mother of God made flesh in TIME. God the Son BECAME MAN at a point in TIME. He was not MAN from all ETERNITY, yet He is GOD from all eternity. Mary is not Mother of God from all ETERNITY but in TIME, when God became man, born of a woman, that woman became Mother of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

JL: The way he has worded the last sentence sounds as though he is saying there was no Trinity (Son) before Christ was born, that would be incorrect. That’s what I thought the first time I read it anyway. I don’t think that’s what he is saying. maybe he will clarify his point.

Mary Mother of God was defined because some were saying God did not REALLY BECOME A MAN, but only inhabited a body of a man, which would mean God did not REALLY BECOME A MAN, only appeared as a man. To deny Mary is Mother of God, who really BECAME MAN is to deny God REALLY BECAME MAN. Mary is Mother of God made flesh in TIME. God the Son BECAME MAN at a point in TIME. He was not MAN from all ETERNITY, yet He is GOD from all eternity. Mary is not Mother of God from all ETERNITY but in TIME, when God became man, born of a woman, that woman became Mother of God.

The Trinity through John, and Genesis has always existed in Bible, Prophets etc. Yet we have the when and how this comes into reality through the “Human Body” thats where we are at in this topic. No?

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”, In Jesus Christ through Mary this bodily form comes to be. Were not talking Old Testament referrence here. I get that. We are talking Mary and New Testament here…Mother of God.