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

[tester]

As I said before, we are using different definitions. When we Catholics say that Mary is the Mother of God we are not saying that she is the source of Jesus’ Divinity, only that she gave birth to Jesus who had two natures, Human and Divine.

Look at it logically.

1. Mary gave birth to Jesus
2. Jesus is God
   so therefore
3. Mary is the Mother of God

You use a different definition, one that includes being the source of something,

It is like we are speaking a different language.

You can not argue against our Catholic beliefs using your protestant definition.

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?

It IS an issue with semantics!

Protestants often emphasizes the pre-existence of Christ and the implications of God having a mother seems to lead to the misconception of the term Theotokos ( which may not translate perfectly into English)

Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, translit. Theotókos) is the Greek title of Mary, the mother of Jesus used especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches. **Its literal English translations include God-bearer **and the one who gives birth to God. Less literal translations include Mother of God. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and some Protestants use the title Mother of God more often than Theotokos. The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human.

Translating the word Theotokos
While some languages used by various Orthodox churches often have a single native word for Theotokos, it gets translated into English in a number of ways. The most common is Mother of God, though God-bearer and Birth-giver to God are also fairly common. There are difficulties with all these translations, however. The most literally correct one is Birth-giver to God, though God-bearer comes close. Theophoros (Θεοφορος) is the Greek term usually and more correctly translated as God-bearer, so using God-bearer for Theotokos in some sense “orphans” Theophoros when it comes time to translate that term (for St. Ignatius of Antioch, for instance). The main difficulties with both these translations for Theotokos is that they are a bit awkward and difficult to sing.

The most popular translation, Mother of God, is accurate to a point, but the difficulty with that one is that Mother of God is the literal translation of another Greek phrase which is found on nearly all icons of the Theotokos: Μητηρ Θεου (Meter Theou), usually in the standard iconographic abbreviation of ΜΡ ΘΥ. Additionally, a number of hymns employ both Theotokos and Meter Theou—translating both as Mother of God can yield some rather nonsensical language, and it destroys the distinction that the hymnographer intended.

The usage that seems to be dominant in English-speaking Orthodox churches in North America is to adopt the original term itself into English (something English speakers have traditionally done with foreign words almost since the earliest known history of the language), transliterating it simply as Theotokos. British usage gives preference to translating Theotokos as Mother of God.
-wiki

 

[BlueShadow123]

Have you ever heard of a heresy called Nestorianism?

This post smacks of that.

Jesus is both human and divine and you cannot separate the two because God became incarnate, that is God became human. In becoming Human He did not loose His Divinity and in remaining Divine He is at the same time fully Human.

So the God become man is both Human and Divine.

And Mary gave birth to God.

How is that possible? To God everything is possible.

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.

She created a human. I am a woman, I can create a human being inside me too!
But then God chose to be the baby, and knew that he would be, even before Mary was born. Mary couldn’t of created God, because then that would mean she was there before God and that she IS God which just isn’t the case.

 

[Roy5]

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.

** 2. I do not defend the sinners’ prayer, which is promoted mainly among evangelical Protestants**. They are strong and growing raidly in the USA and in the third world, which concerns me. I am much more sympathetic to ‘big tent’ Christianity, which differs both from hardshell Catholicism and from fundamentalist Protestantism. Big tent Christianity would permit devoted Christians to have various views on various theological issues without being dismissed as rebellious, egotistical heretics. For example, did Mary live a sinless life? Many will believe this on faith, though nothing in the Bible seems to prove it. Others will regard Mary as fully human, a woman who is to be enormously admired, but fallible like the rest of us. Personally, I have trouble simply echoing what the Church says on such matters, and I find this is a widespread problem among modern Catholics. Sometimes I think Catholicism has backed itself into a corner by demanding that believers conform to all sorts of dogmas, many inherited from other times when we knew so much less about history, psychology, etc.

** 3. The gospels only mention Mary twice between the journey to Jerusalem (when Jesus was 12) until the crucifixion.** Try as I may, I still find both references a bit dismissive. Reread them and see for yourself. Matt. 12:46-50; John 2:4. Those who insist upon traditional doctrine will read them differently, but I think neutral observers will be surprised at the way Jesus responded to his mother. As for that trip to Jerusalem - by the way - even as a child I was troubled that Mary and Joseph would have traveled a day’s journey from Jerusalem without noticing that Jesus was not among them. Today that would be seen as parental irresponsibility. I know we don’t want to hear this, butg it’s the truth. Yes, I know all the explanations - they assumed he was with cousins, etc., But not to check for your only son before setting out on an 80-mile journey, and the son of God, hm.

** 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.

** As stated many times, I believe it wise to let Christians have leeway when it comes to doctrine**. The main emphasis should not be on theological debate but on the matter Jesus raised in Matt. 25. Doctrinal purity is far less important than Christian love. “And now abideth these three, faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.” I personally find it a dangerous ‘heresy’ to make doctrinal conformity so essential when Christ obviously was more concerned with loving God and one another than the doctrines that have pitted Christian against Christian for centuries.

** Let us work to make religion a bridge instead of a barrier.** The whole notion that our church alone has the full Christian truth and all other Christians are wrong, often seriously heretical, has caused such bigotry and arrogance. It lacks generosity, charity, and common sense and has made religion despised by those who regard it as a force for division and hatred rather than for unity and love. We’ll all on a pilgrimage and should respect the different routes other people may follow. 9/11 illustrates what evil can come from those who regard all faiths other than their own as invalid.

 

[BlueShadow123]

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?

They did not kill God. Because God is a soul, they simply killed his body that his soul was staying in. They cannot kill God, because God is soul. His body was simply a shell, which they killed.

Just like how Mary gave birth to a HUMAN which had a soul, and that soul was God’s soul. She didn’t actually give birth to Gods soul. He was there before she was.

So this is how your logic should REALLY be:

1. Herod /Pilate/ the Romans killed Jesus.
2. Jesus’s SOUL is God, but his body is a shell.

so therefore
3)Herod /Pilate/ the Romans killed God’s shell, but not God himself which is a soul.

Is the above true or not? Yes. did the Romans kill God? **No, they killed his shell, not his true self, which is his ‘soul’.
**

 

[Irish_Polock]

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.

She created a human. I am a woman, I can create a human being inside me too!
But then God chose to be the baby, and knew that he would be, even before Mary was born. Mary couldn’t of created God, because then that would mean she was there before God and that she IS God which just isn’t the case.

It seems that you might have misunderstanding of what “Theotokos” actually is. I have not seen anyone take the position of “Mary the God, created God the Father” or any thing that might resemble such a heresy.

Due Diligence of “Theotokes” would be necessary for you here.

 

[BlueShadow123]

It seems that you might have misunderstanding of what “Theotokos” actually is. I have not seen anyone take the position of “Mary the God, created God the Father” or any thing that might resemble such a heresy.

Due Diligence of “Theotokes” would be necessary for you here.

I know exactly what you are trying to say, but I’m saying its not that.

Yes, she gave birth to Jesus, and God’s soul chose to be inside the baby that Mary was delivering. God’s soul was never born though. So she gave birth to a human. A shell, in which his soul entered.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

** 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.

One little correction first, Traditional Christian belief is that Christ has two natures, one divine, the other human. (not had)

The problem as I see it here is that you are separating the Natures. You say Jesus has two Natures, Human and Divine, but then you imply that he was born with only a Human Nature.

Again, it is the issue of what we mean when we say mother.

You are using mother as a source, in this case of His Humanity and not His Divinity, which is true but Catholics do not define mother as a source so we say that Mary is the Mother of God as Jesus is both Human and Divine.

Lets look at it this way.

Lets say that the father of a child has a dominate gene for say, eye color (we will make it blue for this argument). Now the father is the source of the blue eyes of this child. Can we still not say that the mother is the Mother of the blue eyed child? or can we only say that she is the mother of the child as she is not the source of the blue eyes?

 

[Irish_Polock]

I know exactly what you are trying to say, but I’m saying its not that.

Yes, she gave birth to Jesus, and God’s soul chose to be inside the baby that Mary was delivering. God’s soul was never born though. So she gave birth to a human. A shell, in which his soul entered.

So are you saying that Jesus was not a part of the Godhead at the moment he was conceived inside of the BVM? That until he left her womb he was only a shell? If so, when was his spirit instilled into this “shell”, when did he become our Lord and savior?

 

[BlueShadow123]

So are you saying that Jesus was not a part of the Godhead at the moment he was conceived inside of the BVM? That until he left her womb he was only a shell? If so, when was his spirit instilled into this “shell”, when did he become our Lord and savior?

I believe from the moment of conception, he/she has a soul. So obviously the baby that Mary was carrying had God’s soul. She didn’t give birth to the soul though if it was already there. She gave birth a a human who has a soul in it. But if that is your definition of how a soul is born, you can believe that if you want.

And to answer your last question, he was always our lord and savior, some just didn’t know that yet. Some might say became our savior when he died, but if there is always a future and a past, then he always ‘was’.

 

[Daegus]

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.

~ If Mary is not the Mother of God then you’re denying Jesus for what He is. NO ONE is saying that Mary gave birth to Jesus’ divinity. What we are saying is that she gave birth to the second person of the trinity, who is both human and God, making her the mother of God. Your position is not more logical. It’s anti-logical. I feel like a broken-record that speaks in a foreign tongue when I repeat myself saying that Mary did not give birth to His divinity. ~

** 2. I do not defend the sinners’ prayer, which is promoted mainly among evangelical Protestants**. They are strong and growing raidly in the USA and in the third world, which concerns me. I am much more sympathetic to ‘big tent’ Christianity, which differs both from hardshell Catholicism and from fundamentalist Protestantism. Big tent Christianity would permit devoted Christians to have various views on various theological issues without being dismissed as rebellious, egotistical heretics. For example, did Mary live a sinless life? Many will believe this on faith, though nothing in the Bible seems to prove it. Others will regard Mary as fully human, a woman who is to be enormously admired, but fallible like the rest of us. Personally, I have trouble simply echoing what the Church says on such matters, and I find this is a widespread problem among modern Catholics. Sometimes I think Catholicism has backed itself into a corner by demanding that believers conform to all sorts of dogmas, many inherited from other times when we knew so much less about history, psychology, etc.

~ We believe that Mary is sinless because it actually makes sense to believe so and isn’t anti-biblical. God dwelt within the arc of His covenant which was made out of pure gold in the OT, and He dwelt within the womb of a pure woman in the NT. No one is saying that Mary was anything more than a human, but she certainly deserves more respect than is generally given to her by Protestants for the person she gave birth to. Ask yourself this: Why would God (the same God who can’t even look upon sin or have it in His kingdom) want to physically place Himself in a stained womb? That just doesn’t seem to fit with His nature. ~

** 3. The gospels only mention Mary twice between the journey to Jerusalem (when Jesus was 12) until the crucifixion.** Try as I may, I still find both references a bit dismissive. Reread them and see for yourself. Matt. 12:46-50; John 2:4. Those who insist upon traditional doctrine will read them differently, but I think neutral observers will be surprised at the way Jesus responded to his mother. As for that trip to Jerusalem - by the way - even as a child I was troubled that Mary and Joseph would have traveled a day’s journey from Jerusalem without noticing that Jesus was not among them. Today that would be seen as parental irresponsibility. I know we don’t want to hear this, butg it’s the truth. Yes, I know all the explanations - they assumed he was with cousins, etc., But not to check for your only son before setting out on an 80-mile journey, and the son of God, hm.

~ I don’t see what point you’re trying to prove. If you’re trying to say that Mary somehow sinned by overlooking whether Jesus was with her that’s a pretty weak argument. It’s like saying I sinned because I came to the conclusion that 1 + 1 = 587. What moral wrong have I done? I made a mathematical error, yes, but how does incorrectly adding 2 numbers together mean I’ve committed a grave offense to God (sin)? If that’s not what you were trying to get at, please explain. ~

** 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.

~ I’m not qualified to get into a discussion about when Adam was created, so I’ll just leave this one alone. ~

** As stated many times, I believe it wise to let Christians have leeway when it comes to doctrine**. The main emphasis should not be on theological debate but on the matter Jesus raised in Matt. 25. Doctrinal purity is far less important than Christian love. “And now abideth these three, faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.” I personally find it a dangerous ‘heresy’ to make doctrinal conformity so essential when Christ obviously was more concerned with loving God and one another than the doctrines that have pitted Christian against Christian for centuries.

~ If you really loved another person, would you sit there and not try to tell them the truth? I believe in giving people leeway to make their own decisions too, but I don’t believe in sitting there and allowing them to live based off of erroneous beliefs and not try to help them. If they don’t want to listen that’s their problem, but I want to do what I can to help. ~

 

[Daegus]

** Let us work to make religion a bridge instead of a barrier.** The whole notion that our church alone has the full Christian truth and all other Christians are wrong, often seriously heretical, has caused such bigotry and arrogance. It lacks generosity, charity, and common sense and has made religion despised by those who regard it as a force for division and hatred rather than for unity and love. We’ll all on a pilgrimage and should respect the different routes other people may follow. 9/11 illustrates what evil can come from those who regard all faiths other than their own as invalid.

~ See, this type of thing is what I don’t agree with. Why should we, the Church faithful, sit there and watch our brothers and sisters in Christ live their lives according to erroneous faith when they could join us in the fullness of the truth? Letting people live in error is just as cruel as not arresting a serial killer because he might get offended by the fact that he’s caught. The “notion” that our Church has the fullness of the truth is not just a mere notion. It’s a fact. Simply claiming the truth isn’t what causes bigotry. Pride is what causes bigotry. If people cannot claim the truth without being prideful, then that’s their issue, but simply claiming the truth does not automatically make anyone a bigot. ~

 

[Irish_Polock]

I believe from the moment of conception, he/she has a soul. So obviously the baby that Mary was carrying had God’s soul. She didn’t give birth to the soul though if it was already there. She gave birth a human who has a soul in it. But if that is your definition of how a soul is born, you can believe that if you want.

And to answer your last question, he was always our lord and savior, some just didn’t know that yet. Some might say became our savior when he died, but if there is always a future and a past, then he always ‘was’.

Is it your belief that the Father and the Son are of two different substances?

From what I can gather, this is what you are implying when you say “She gave birth a human who has a soul in it.” this would be a heretical statement - IF this is what you are indeed saying.(see Nestorianism)

My definition of how a soul is born is the same as yours’, although I would not separate the persona’s of Jesus. For Catholics such as myself (and most of Christendom), we believe the Jesus Christ is of one substance with the Father, therefor, the BVM is indeed the Mother of God. To say otherwise would be denying that Christ is indeed God as Christians have traditionally understood it.(Hypostatic Union)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe from the moment of conception, he/she has a soul. So obviously the baby that Mary was carrying had God’s soul. She didn’t give birth to the soul though if it was already there. She gave birth a a human who has a soul in it. But if that is your definition of how a soul is born, you can believe that if you want.

And to answer your last question, he was always our lord and savior, some just didn’t know that yet. Some might say became our savior when he died, but if there is always a future and a past, then he always ‘was’.

Yes, every human being at the moment of conception has a soul yet neither parent, mother nor father, are the source of that soul. The soul is created by God.

So by your argument, no parent can be called the mother or father of any of their children because the soul exists independent of them.

At least that is how I read your argument.

 

[Roy5]

Daegus

** 1. If Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ but only his human form, why is she called Mother of God? **Mother of Jesus makes more sense. I still have trouble seeing any human as being the Mother of God. God had no mother or father. God is the alpha and omega, eternal, certainly without a human parent. There is something rather Mormonish about this. Sorry, but that’s how it strikes me.

**2. Frankly, I much prefer to think of Mary as a normal human mother.** She made mistakes (as perhaps when she left Jesus behind in Jerusalem). Why shouldn't she have the human traits of most of us. Not a big sinner - no. Never broke the commandments. But she may have lost her temper, spoke sharply when she should have been calm, was irritable when she had a headache, criticized when she should have praised, etc. Otherwise, she seems to have been created a demi-god (or demi-goddess), not a normal human being.

** 3. I guess I simply can't believe that a womb is inevitably stained. I'm not even sure I know what this means.** It seems to suggest that there is something unclean about a womb. What a wild concept. The wombs of millions, maybe billions, of women produced their beloved offspring, each one a child of God, so how could they be stained? This whole notion of "in Adam's fall we sinneth all' - a concept found in both Catholicism and some forms of Protestantism - is basically unjust. How can all the inhabitants of the world be punished for a sin of one mythical couple, Adam and Eve? What kind of loving, merciful, forgiving God would do that?  

 **An article in a recent edition of the Catholic magazine *Commonweal* points out that Catholicism is losing many of its brightest laity to liberal Protestantism or to no church because Catholicism is so forbidding in its allowance of diverse views on a variety of issues.** Few well-educated people can be herded like sheep. Millions of Catholics who love their church have come to a point where they can no longer live with some of the intellectual restraints imposed their beloved Church. Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ and other denominations have many, many former Catholics in their pews because of this problem. I know that some traditional Catholics don't care. Good riddance may be their attitude. I do care.

 

[Daegus]

Daegus

** 1. If Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ but only his human form, why is she called Mother of God? **Mother of Jesus makes more sense. I still have trouble seeing any human as being the Mother of God. God had no mother or father. God is the alpha and omega, eternal, certainly without a human parent. There is something rather Mormonish about this. Sorry, but that’s how it strikes me.

~ I’ve already explained this several times. I’m not going to repeat myself. ~

**2. Frankly, I much prefer to think of Mary as a normal human mother.** She made mistakes (as perhaps when she left Jesus behind in Jerusalem). Why shouldn't she have the human traits of most of us. Not a big sinner - no. Never broke the commandments. But she may have lost her temper, spoke sharply when she should have been calm, was irritable when she had a headache, criticized when she should have praised, etc. Otherwise, she seems to have been created a demi-god (or demi-goddess), not a normal human being

~ She is normal in the sense that she is human, and she did have human traits, but she did not give birth to just some man. She gave birth to the second person of the trinity turned flesh. I don’t see what’s so hard to accept about that. Also, simply getting angry is not a sin. If it was then we were screwed from the moment that Jesus flipped those tables and chased the moneychangers out of the temple. No one here is making her out to be a demigod. This is your irrational perspective on a simple matter. Why is it so hard for some people to differentiate respect and worship? It’s almost as if a part of their brain just shuts off when someone starts talking positively about Mary. ~

** 3. I guess I simply can't believe that a womb is inevitably stained. I'm not even sure I know what this means.** It seems to suggest that there is something unclean about a womb. What a wild concept. The wombs of millions, maybe billions, of women produced their beloved offspring, each one a child of God, so how could they be stained? This whole notion of "in Adam's fall we sinneth all' - a concept found in both Catholicism and some forms of Protestantism - is basically unjust. How can all the inhabitants of the world be punished for a sin of one mythical couple, Adam and Eve? What kind of loving, merciful, forgiving God would do that?

~ You seem to be assuming things I didn’t say. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a woman’s womb, it’s just that if God wanted to physically dwell within a vessel, why not a perfect one? He did in the Old Testament. Frankly, I think you’re making an issue out of nothing and if you don’t believe that everyone has sinned (thus making them and every part of them imperfect), then you don’t believe in basic biblical teaching. We’re not being judged for Adam and Eve’s sin. We’re being judged for the sins we are inclined to commit by the mistakes of our first parents, not specifically what they did. It seems you have issues with God if you’re unable to accept that all have sinned (except a chosen few) and naturally lean towards their own damnation. The Church also does not teach that Adam and Eve are a “myth”, so I do not agree with you on that either. ~

 **An article in a recent edition of the Catholic magazine *Commonweal*** points out that Catholicism is losing many of its brightest laity to liberal Protestantism or to no church because Catholicism is so forbidding in its allowance of diverse views on a variety of issues. Few well-educated people can be herded like sheep. Millions of Catholics who love their church have come to a point where they can no longer live with some of the intellectual restraints imposed their beloved Church. Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ and other denominations have many, many former Catholics in their pews because of this problem. I know that some traditional Catholics don't care. Good riddance may be their attitude. I do care.

~ Well, I’m sorry that we lost members of our laity because they can’t come to see eye to eye on certain issues with the Church. That’s not the Church’s problem, but theirs. There are people who fornicate, commit adultery, murder their own children and won’t join the Church because we are opposed to such acts. And please… don’t give me track about “intellectual restraints”. The Church doesn’t think for anybody or prevent anyone from making decisions. Anyone who believes so either: (1)does not know/fully understand Church teaching or (2)is completely insane and should be thrown into a mental asylum. The Church only sets guidelines that she expects us to follow and encourages us to follow, but does not force us into doing anything. This argument is absurd and isn’t based on any correct information. ~

 

[tester]

They did not kill God. Because God is a soul, they simply killed his body that his soul was staying in. They cannot kill God, because God is soul. His body was simply a shell, which they killed.

Just like how Mary gave birth to a HUMAN which had a soul, and that soul was God’s soul. She didn’t actually give birth to Gods soul. He was there before she was.

So this is how your logic should REALLY be:

1. Herod /Pilate/ the Romans killed Jesus.
2. Jesus’s SOUL is God, but his body is a shell.

so therefore
3)Herod /Pilate/ the Romans killed God’s shell, but not God himself which is a soul.

Is the above true or not? Yes. did the Romans kill God? **No, they killed his shell, not his true self, which is his ‘soul’.
**

from post 60

1. Mary gave birth to Jesus
2. Jesus is God
   so therefore
3. Mary is the Mother of God

and following the BlueShadow123 example quoted above

1. Mary gave birth to Jesus
2. Jesus’s SOUL is God, but his body is a shell.
   so therefore
3. Mary gave birth to God’s shell, but not God himself which is a soul.

Mary is Mother of God’s shell?

BlueShadow123 stated
did the Romans kill God? **No, they killed his shell, not his true self, which is his ‘soul’.
**

so Did Mary give birth to God? (same logic as above) No, she gave birth to his shell, not his true self, which is his ‘soul’.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Is it your belief that the Father and the Son are of two different substances?

From what I can gather, this is what you are implying when you say “She gave birth a human who has a soul in it.” this would be a heretical statement - IF this is what you are indeed saying.(see Nestorianism)

Why is it not allowed to separate the two natures in birth but then you allow the same to be separated at death. Mary gave birth to the person, Jesus Christ and the person, Jesus Christ died on the cross. Did both the divine and human natures of Jesus die? Well only his human nature died you will answer. Then wouldn’t the same be heresy using the same reasoning?

 

[Daegus]

Why is it not allowed to separate the two natures in birth but then you allow the same to be separated at death.

By separating Jesus’ two natures as if they’re not perfectly united you make it questionable as to whether you actually believe He is God or not. Mary did give birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is believed to be God, unless you’re not a Christian.

Mary gave birth to the person, Jesus Christ and the person, Jesus Christ died on the cross. Did both the divine and human natures of Jesus die? Well only his human nature died you will answer. Then wouldn’t the same be heresy using the same reasoning?

His human nature didn’t die. In fact, neither of His natures died. His body died but His human nature and His divinity live on to this day (in hypostatic union) and will continue to live on forever. When you say that only the person of Jesus died on the cross you’re basically saying to everyone on here that you doubt/don’t believe that Jesus is God. You’ve made a faulty assumption based on erroneous reasoning and you assume that someone else will fall into your mistakes because you haven’t been reasoning correctly.

 

[Rocket_Man]

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?

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?

 

[Irish_Polock]

** 1. If Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ but only his human form, why is she called Mother of God? **Mother of Jesus makes more sense. I still have trouble seeing any human as being the Mother of God. God had no mother or father. God is the alpha and omega, eternal, certainly without a human parent. There is something rather Mormonish about this. Sorry, but that’s how it strikes me.

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.

**2. Frankly, I much prefer to think of Mary as a normal human mother.** She made mistakes (as perhaps when she left Jesus behind in Jerusalem). Why shouldn't she have the human traits of most of us. Not a big sinner - no. Never broke the commandments. But she may have lost her temper, spoke sharply when she should have been calm, was irritable when she had a headache, criticized when she should have praised, etc. Otherwise, she seems to have been created a demi-god (or demi-goddess), not a normal human being.

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.

** 3. I guess I simply can't believe that a womb is inevitably stained. I'm not even sure I know what this means.** It seems to suggest that there is something unclean about a womb. What a wild concept. The wombs of millions, maybe billions, of women produced their beloved offspring, each one a child of God, so how could they be stained? This whole notion of "in Adam's fall we sinneth all' - a concept found in both Catholicism and some forms of Protestantism - is basically unjust. How can all the inhabitants of the world be punished for a sin of one mythical couple, Adam and Eve? What kind of loving, merciful, forgiving God would do that?

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.

 **An article in a recent edition of the Catholic magazine *Commonweal*** points out that Catholicism is losing many of its brightest laity to liberal Protestantism or to no church because Catholicism is so forbidding in its allowance of diverse views on a variety of issues. Few well-educated people can be herded like sheep. Millions of Catholics who love their church have come to a point where they can no longer live with some of the intellectual restraints imposed their beloved Church. Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ and other denominations have many, many former Catholics in their pews because of this problem. I know that some traditional Catholics don't care. Good riddance may be their attitude. I do care.

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.