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

[westwaswon]

Firstly, this is ADDING to Scripture. I do not see where it says every human has sinned.

It says ALL have sinned.

So either it’s a literal all or it’s not.

And, clearly, every 100% human man has not sinned. Do you believe that babies can sin? Or those with Down syndrome? Or those who have Noonan syndrome? Or toddlers can sin?

Romans 3
This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Not adding, I think this clearly speaks to man specifically. I believe babies are born wholly of man (not God and man) and thus are damned by their sin nature but if God in His infinite wisdom chooses to save them, that makes just as much sense to me. “What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory”

 

[PRmerger]

Romans 3
This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Not adding, I think this clearly speaks to man specifically.

Do you see where this is leading you, then, west?

Now you are in the conundrum of trying to explain to a non-Christian how Jesus is fully human.

The Muslim will logically conclude that you’re excluding Jesus from humanity.

I believe babies are born wholly of man (not God and man) and thus are damned by their sin nature but if God in His infinite wisdom chooses to save them, that makes just as much sense to me. “What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory”

Babies have sinned? How can you sin when you have no cognoscible ability?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I was reading this and needed to throw my two cents in.

Welcome.

Protestants in my circles honor Mary and deservedly so, but they don’t ADD all the things Catholics do. Will a catholic please answer that for me? Why all the pomp for her? Why is she more deserving? Why assign extra emphasis?

Let me start with what all Christians should agree on. Christians should agree on honoring Mary. God honored her above ALL creatures by making her the mother of His Son. In honoring Mary, Christians are following the example of God Himself. Mary’s special privileges were given to her by GOD, not man. Catholics do not go beyond honoring Mary.

Just clarifying, here.

Now a look at Luke 1:26-56:

Elizabeth, who was guided by the Holy Spirit as Luke tells us, honors our Lady saying, “How does this happen to me, that the *mother of my Lord *should come to me?”

In Luke 1:48, Our Lady prophesies that ALL ages will call her blessed. Why don’t you call her Blessed Virgin Mary like Catholics do? We are being biblical by referring to her as “blessed.” By taking away her title, you are only proving you don’t have a level of respect for her. Jesus, the one who honors and loves her THE MOST does not appreciate this.

On the subject “Mother of God,” to deny Mary indeed being the Mother of God, one is only denying the Incarnation. Is Jesus not God? Jesus was born as one person, with two natures. NOT two persons: one human, one divine.

Scripture teaches that Mary is “Mother of God”

Luke 1:43: Elizabeth calls Mary "mother of my Lord." In the NT, “Lord” refers only to God.

Mt. 1:23: “‘Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name Him Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God with us.’”

Luke 1:35: “the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

Gal. 4:4: “when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman.”

 

[SyCarl]

Do you see where this is leading you, then, west?

Now you are in the conundrum of trying to explain to a non-Christian how Jesus is fully human.

The Muslim will logically conclude that you’re excluding Jesus from humanity.

Babies have sinned? How can you sin when you have no cognoscible ability?

Is it really any different than explaing that Mother of God does mean Mary pre-existed God, that she contributed to His divinity, and that despite having a mother, God doesn’t have a father.

The Council of Ephesus chose the call Mary Theotokis, God-bearer or one who gave birth to God. Both of these are accurate descriptions of what Mary did. The Council could have called her Mētēr tou Theou or Theomētor, which would result in Mother of God, but they didn’t. Calling Mary Mother of God is an anthropomorphism that really isn’t accurate because God has neither father or mother.

As for what Muslims will think we can look at what actually made it into the Qur’an. It indicates that the Trinity is Father, Son and Mother. Could that be because of the title Mother of God?

 

[Rocket_Man]

When you are in relationship with someone you naturally want to be with their family.

Mary is God’s family. If you really love Christ, then you’ll want to know Mary.

I feel that I must defend them because I know them for I was among them. It is presumptuous to think that the penitent prostitute wanted to meet the family while she showered our Lord with her tears. I have cried along with her for many years in praise for the mighty work He has done in our behalf. Our Lord will lead them back to the family in His own timing. Do not envy but teach with humility those that are coming back home.

 

[jimmy]

Now that I can get behind. However, many Catholics here seem to think that the BVM was Mother of God and until birth He was not God

No Catholic has ever implied such an idea (atleast on purpose). The assertion that Mary is mother of God is an affirmation of the teaching that Jesus is the second person of God made man. He assumed the human nature as His own, so when he was born in Matt.1 God was born, when he was crucified, it is God who was crucified. It is one divine person who was present in all the gospel scenes. God the Son was begotten twice; once in his divinity eternally from the Father, and once in his humanity temporally from Mary. He received his divinity from the Father, and his humanity from Mary. So Mary is his mother because he was born as a man and received his humanity from her.

 

[jimmy]

The Council of Ephesus chose the call Mary Theotokis, God-bearer or one who gave birth to God. Both of these are accurate descriptions of what Mary did. The Council could have called her Mētēr tou Theou or Theomētor, which would result in Mother of God, but they didn’t. Calling Mary Mother of God is an anthropomorphism that really isn’t accurate because God has neither father or mother.

To assert that Mary is theotokos and deny that Mary is mother of God is to do the same thing Nestorius did. It is to divide Christ. It is to explain the characteristics of the natures in complete seperation from each other. You are then forced to interpret Luke1’s statement that Mary is ‘the mother of my Lord’ as referring to only the humanity of Christ. You are consequently still violating the text of Ephesus, which wasn’t actually about Mary, but was actually about Christ Himself. Mary is the theotokos/mother of God because Christ is God made man, and since she is the mother of Christ she is the mother of God. Ephesus isn’t about the relationship between Mary and Jesus, but between the humanity of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus. It is an affirmation of the complete unity of the two natures within Christ.

The council of Ephesus is an expression of the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria (who was the president of the council). It is ultimately the final affirmation of Cyril’s theology against that of Nestorius. Cyril made his theology clear in his twelve anathemas written against Nestorius. Here are a few that establish the point. I offer these simply as an explanation of the meaning of Ephesus and the theology of Cyril.

1. If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema.
2. If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because “the Word was made flesh,” and “hath a share in flesh and blood as we do:” let him be anathema.
4. If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added * to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema.
5. Divine Scripture says, that Christ became High Priest and Apostle of our confession, and that he offered himself for us a sweet-smelling savour to God the Father. Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him, who is become our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.
6. Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema.

earlychurchtexts.com/public/cyrilofalex_twelve_anathemas.htm

These texts show the unity of Christ as man and God. In fact, Cyril rarely if ever refers to Christ as being ‘in two natures’, but rather being ‘from two natures’ to emphasize the unity of natures after the union. The Greek statement is mia physis tou logou theou sesarkomenae, which means ‘one incarnate nature of God the word’. All things that are done by Christ are done both as God and man, even if some have their origin from the power of divinity or of humanity. Miracles are an act of the divine man, even though their source is divinity. Birth and death are both aspects of life that are participated in by God, even though they are properties of the human nature.*

 

[PRmerger]

Is it really any different than explaing that Mother of God does mean Mary pre-existed God, that she contributed to His divinity, and that despite having a mother, God doesn’t have a father.

Fair enough.

So how would you as a Protestant dialogue with the Muslim who professes that “even your Scriptures claim that your Jesus sinned”?

The Council of Ephesus chose the call Mary Theotokis, God-bearer or one who gave birth to God. Both of these are accurate descriptions of what Mary did. The Council could have called her Mētēr tou Theou or Theomētor, which would result in Mother of God, but they didn’t. Calling Mary Mother of God is an anthropomorphism that really isn’t accurate because God has neither father or mother.

Well, Carl, isn’t everything we speak about God an anthropomorphism? For how else we would talk about Him who Cannot be Defined?

As for what Muslims will think we can look at what actually made it into the Qur’an. It indicates that the Trinity is Father, Son and Mother. Could that be because of the title Mother of God?

It would seem that the title “mother of God” would certainly eliminate Mary from being in the Trinity, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

It is presumptuous to think that the penitent prostitute wanted to meet the family while she showered our Lord with her tears.

Indeed. It was clearly an immature love that she offered to our Lord; who could doubt, however, as this love grew and matured that she wanted to be with Him and know ALL that was OF Him.

Perhaps this is the best example you’ve given of said Christians who want Him and Him alone. Their love is indeed like the penitent prostitute’s immature love that needs to grow and ripen into that which Catholicism proclaims.

 

[zarthan]

Welcome.
Let me start with what all Christians should agree on. Christians should agree on honoring Mary. God honored her above ALL creatures by making her the mother of His Son. In honoring Mary, Christians are following the example of God Himself. Mary’s special privileges were given to her by GOD, not man. Catholics do not go beyond honoring Mary.

Just clarifying, here.

Now a look at Luke 1:26-56:

Elizabeth, who was guided by the Holy Spirit as Luke tells us, honors our Lady saying, “How does this happen to me, that the *mother of my Lord *should come to me?”

In Luke 1:48, Our Lady prophesies that ALL ages will call her blessed. Why don’t you call her Blessed Virgin Mary like Catholics do? We are being biblical by referring to her as “blessed.” By taking away her title, you are only proving you don’t have a level of respect for her. Jesus, the one who honors and loves her THE MOST does not appreciate this.

On the subject “Mother of God,” to deny Mary indeed being the Mother of God, one is only denying the Incarnation. Is Jesus not God? Jesus was born as one person, with two natures. NOT two persons: one human, one divine.

Scripture teaches that Mary is “Mother of God”

Luke 1:43: Elizabeth calls Mary "mother of my Lord." In the NT, “Lord” refers only to God.

Mt. 1:23: “‘Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name Him Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God with us.’”

Luke 1:35: “the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

Gal. 4:4: “when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman.”

You are not correct in stating that the word, “Lord” (Kurios) in the N.T. only refers to God.

Here are but a few references of the Greek word, Kurios in its various forms.

Peter says that Sarah called her husband, Abraham (Lord/Kurion) in 1 Peter 3:6.

The owners of a certain slave woman were called (Masters/Kuriois) in Acts 16:16.

Governor Festus refers to Ceasar as (Sovereign/Kurio) in Acts 25:26

Mary Magdalene who thought she was talking to a gardener, addressed the supposed gardener as (Sir/Kurie) in John 20:15.

There were some Greek men who addressed Philip, the disciple as (Sir/Kurie) in John 12:21.

John the apostle addresses one of the elders in his vision as (Sir/Kurie) in Rev.7:14.

 

[benedictus2]

** One of my major problems when it comes to venerating Mary is that in all of the epistles her name doesn’t appear once.**

Which is an irrational argument since she appears in all the Gospels. I hate to say this but this is the most stupid argument I have ever read considering that Gospels contain the narratives of Jesus’s life.

** It seems quite possible to me that Mariology developed more and more as Christianity competed with early religions (such as the mystery religions as well as the Greco-Roman goddesses).**

How then does one account for the fact that she is mentioned in all the Gospels and that Luke is probably the most Marian of all the gospels?

** But, those who accept the infallible word of the Pope and the Magisterium will not worry about such things. They accept it because the Church teaches it.**

We accept it because Christ said so. We have it on Christ’s authority as God that He will lead His Church into truth.

There are of course other lost souls, navigatiing the sea of doctrine aimlessly and rudderless.

** I also want to make it clear that it is certainly proper to honor Mary as the mother of human Jesus.** What a wonderful mission she had!!

I also want to make it clear that you are a heretic in the line of Nestorious.
**

But was she the mother of Christ’s divinity, that ‘part’ of Christ, if you will, which made him divine?

**

Hm! That’s where I have a problem when it comes to referring to her as the ‘Mother of God’.

She was the mother of the PERSON Jesus Christ who is both fully human and fully divine.

But since you are a Nestorian heretic that will be hard for you to understand.

Happy Near Year, whatever your creed, color or country.

**
Happy Feast of Mary, Mother of God.

May our Lord Be Praised. All ages will call her Blessed.**

 

[benedictus2]

Christ is also 100% human as well. So we can say the verse can’t be literal and if God so choose to save someone before Christ died in our reality He could well do it because God is outside of time.

Wow, Panner, that is quite brilliant! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

For example, there is strong evidence that Jesus wasn’t born in the winter, but that Christians ‘baptized’ (as it were) Saturnalia, the Roman holiday that occurred at the time of the winter solstice, seen as the birthday of the Sun - when the days began to become longer, etc.

How very wrong you are;

Here’s a little bit of education for you.

That Roman mythos predates Christianity with regards Christmas IS the myth.

That Christmas was a pagan festival was actually a lie that Paul Jablonski (a German Protestant) perpetuated in a desire to show the paganization of Catholic Christianity.

The following is taken from "Mary Mother of the Son" by Mark Shea :

*"The definitive “Handbook of Biblical Chronology” by Professor Jack Finegan cites an important reference in the “Chronicle” written by Hippolytus of Rome, 3 decades before Aurelian launches his festival. Hippolytus said Jesus’s bith “took place eight days before the kalends of January” that is Dec 25.

Tighe said there’s evidence that as early as the second and third centuries, Christian sought to fix the birth dates to help determine the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection for the liturgical calendar - long before Christmas also became a festival.

In short, there was agitation in the early Church concerning not Jesus’s birthday but the day upon which the historical Good Friday and Easter fell. In the Eastern Church, the tradition focused on April 6 as the date for the original Good Friday, while in the western Church it was widely held that the date was March 25.*

**Why does this matter? ** Tighe continues:
At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The ideas is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.

This notion is a key fctor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25 is the date of Christ’s birth. The early Christian applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ’s birth but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first century and second century Christians thoguht of Mar 25 or April 6 as the date of Christ’s birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25 as Christ’s conception prevailed.

It is to this day commemorated almost universally among Christians a the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel brought the good tidings of a saviour to the Virgin Mary, upon whose acquiescene the Eternal Word of God (Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten of the Father before all ages forthwith became incarnate in her womb. What is the length of pregnancy? Nine months. Add nine months to March 25th and you get December 25th. Add it to April 6th and you get January 6th. December 25th is Christmas, January 6th is Epiphany.

***And because these traditional, albeit competing birth dates were already being revered in the rapidly growing Church, the emperor of a failing pagan empire instituted the Feast of the Unconquered Sun not only as an “effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, also almost certainly [as] an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians”
***…

 

[benedictus2]

Is it really any different than explaing that Mother of God does mean Mary pre-existed God, that she contributed to His divinity, and that despite having a mother, God doesn’t have a father.

The Council of Ephesus chose the call Mary Theotokis, God-bearer or one who gave birth to God. Both of these are accurate descriptions of what Mary did. The Council could have called her Mētēr tou Theou or Theomētor, which would result in Mother of God, but they didn’t. Calling Mary Mother of God is an anthropomorphism that really isn’t accurate because God has neither father or mother.

Seriously, what does a woman who bears a child and gives birth to a child called. Is it not Mother?

And another thing. How does calling Mary Mother of God mean she pre-existed God. Everyone knows that God the Father does not have an earthly mother.

But everyone knows too that the Son of God, who is also God, has an earthly mother.

Every Gospel said so. If we affirm that Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother then Mary is the Mother of God.

What is so hard to understand about that?

If the first two premises are true then the conclusion is true.

Jesus is God.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Ergo, Mary is the Mother of God.

Only if either of the premises are wrong will the conclusion be wrong.

 

[SunshineZA]

You are not correct in stating that the word, “Lord” (Kurios) in the N.T. only refers to God.

Here are but a few references of the Greek word, Kurios in its various forms.

Peter says that Sarah called her husband, Abraham (Lord/Kurion) in 1 Peter 3:6.

The owners of a certain slave woman were called (Masters/Kuriois) in Acts 16:16.

Governor Festus refers to Ceasar as (Sovereign/Kurio) in Acts 25:26

Mary Magdalene who thought she was talking to a gardener, addressed the supposed gardener as (Sir/Kurie) in John 20:15.

There were some Greek men who addressed Philip, the disciple as (Sir/Kurie) in John 12:21.

John the apostle addresses one of the elders in his vision as (Sir/Kurie) in Rev.7:14.

 

[SunshineZA]

You are not correct in stating that the word, “Lord” (Kurios) in the N.T. only refers to God.

Luke 1:43: Elizabeth calls Mary "mother of my Lord."
In context of this thread, who would you say Elizabeth refers to when she uses the word LORD/Kurios? Who else would be Lord/Kurios in Elizabeth’s environment at that time?

 

[mountaintop]

I don’t believe she is the Mother of God in the sense that God started with her giving birth. God has no beginning and no ending and in reality no parents, He is the Great I Am

yes and the word became flesh and dwelt among us, so before the word could become flesh the great I am had to make his own mother hence the immaculate conception Anne conceived Mary thru the power of the holy spirit. Then Mary conceived the great i am {Jesus} thru the power of the holy spirit which would make Mary the mother of God as foretold in Genesis 3:15:shrug::newidea:

 

[SunshineZA]

yes and the word became flesh and dwelt among us, so before the word could become flesh the great I am had to make his own mother hence the immaculate conception Anne conceived Mary thru the power of the holy spirit. Then Mary conceived the great i am {Jesus} thru the power of the holy spirit which would make Mary the mother of God as foretold in Genesis 3:15:shrug::newidea:

 

[benedictus2]

I always read Romans 1 to be a picture of the creation and the fact is certainly expressed in the Israelites below Mount Horeb and all the future generations.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

You said: Mankind having a form of religion has always elevated creature over the creator.

I said: Can you back it up with facts.

Your answer is not facts.

You cite only 1 example which does not back up your claim.

The problem with your statement is ALWAYS. Show that all mankind’s religions always elevate the created over the creator.

By saying so, you are saying that Christianity also elevates the created over the creator and that Judaism is the same.

I think you need to think again.

 

[benedictus2]

While this may be an indictment of pagan religions, it certainly is not true of Christianity.

Good one! Short straight and to the point!

I think Rocket_Man thought that statement sounded profound so he wrote it