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

[elvisman]

Surrogates give birth to children that are not their children by creation. Mary did not create God so, in that sense, she is not His mother.

I have nothing new to add to this discussion at this time .

Careful, Doki -
**You’re falling into that old heretical Nestorian trap . . . **

To say that Mary didn’t create Jesus is as true as saying that ANY mother does not create her children - GOD does.
**Jesus had Mary’s DNA. He was part of her very self. Surrogates give birth to children NOT of their own DNA. What you are doing is speaking heresey against Jesus.

**The thing I always find a bit humorous about Protestant objections to Catholic beliefs such as Mary, Mother of God or the Eucharist, is that they forget WHY God did things the way he did them. **God didn’t need ANYBODY to bring Jesus into the world. He CHOSE this method because of OUR need for the physical. Just as he did the Eucharist. Just as Jesus cured the blind man by putting mud into his eyes.

**You’re right about one thing, Doki - Mary didn’**t create God the Father or the Sprit. She didn’t even create Jesus. Mary gave BIRTH to the Person in the Holy Trinity - who was God.

 

[jlhargus]

"And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest."

JL: Then why did they abandon him after? Because they were only hopeful he was the messiah. Why did they later say, We have no king but Cesare They had alredy seen many false messiahs come and go.

If you recall, James and John abandoned their father Zebedee’s fishing business to follow the Holy Prophet. I am sure there were many heated discussions in the family regarding their departure and the coming of the Christ, the Son of David who’s Kingdom would be everlasting. Now, we do not know the details of those discussions and I agree that they didn’t know the full revelation, but one thing we do know is that the mother knew there was to be a Kingdom, the fulfillment of the prophecy, and Jesus was the King. Evidently the position of “Queen Mother” hadn’t been elevated in Jewish thought or she wouldn’t had ever asked the question. Nor would had the other disciples who had heard the question felt indignation against James and John knowing the position on the right hand belonged to neither one present but to Jesus’ mother.

JL: You assume to much, the king could have removed the queen mother, if desired, and set his teddy bear on his right. You state, [Evidently the position of “Queen Mother” hadn’t been elevated in Jewish thought or she wouldn’t had ever asked the question.] I agree just as I said before not even the apostles understood fully until after Pentecost. Neverthless we see that queen in heaven. [RV 12:1 And **there appeared A great wonder [SIGN] IN HEAVEN A WOMAN clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and upon her head a crown of twelve stars 2 And she being with child cried travailing in birth and pained to be delivered] The woman is a person=Mary and a sign, symbolic of the Church Old and New Covenant people of God.

 

[Dokimas]

But by your definition of surrogacy, every single mother on earth fits that description.

That’s according to your understranding of what I meant. I must have trouble communicating; that’s nothing new for me.

 

[Dokimas]

Then it puzzling why you object to the concept of Mary as the Mother of God.

I must be my thinking differently of what being God’s mother means. It seem obvious to me. I guess that’s what makes communication difficult.

 

[Dokimas]

Wait a minute… Correct me if I’m wrong; are you actually arguing that Mary was Jesus’ “surrogate mother?” What the heck does that even mean?

Yes, that’s my opinion; you’ll just have to read what I’ve said on the issue. I really don’t feel like re-hashing here.

If you PM me with your question, I’ll give you an answer when I get some time.

 

[Dokimas]

Careful, Doki -
You’re falling into that old heretical Nestorian trap . . .

To say that Mary didn’t create Jesus is as true as saying that ANY mother does not create her children - GOD does.

I’ve already explained my view. I won’t bore you or humor you further.

Jesus had Mary’s DNA.

Where’s your proof?

He was part of her very

self. Surrogates give birth to children NOT of their own DNA. What you are doing is speaking *heresey *against Jesus.

Thanks for your opinion; thanks for your warning.

The thing I always find a bit humorous about Protestant objections to Catholic beliefs such as Mary, Mother of God or the Eucharist, is that they forget WHY God did things the way he did them.

I don’t find our differences humorous at all. I do, however, question if you understand why God did things the way He did as I hear your views on things. However, I’ve NOT seen anything you say you believe to be true that would keep you from Heaven.

God didn’t need ANYBODY to bring Jesus into the world. He CHOSE this method because of OUR need for the physical. Just as he did the Eucharist. Just as Jesus cured the blind man by putting mud into his eyes.

Agreed.

You’re right about one thing, Doki - Mary didn’t create God the Father or the Sprit. She didn’t even create Jesus. Mary gave BIRTH to the Person in the Holy Trinity - who was God.

Agreed. Sounds a bit like surrogate pregnancy to me. Thanks.

 

[Dokimas]

An you have an opinion as we all do. It’s only God’s opinion that’s 100% correct. Our opinion is correct when it matches up with God’s.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make that clearer.

 

[Dokimas]

It is a matter of opinion: not yours, not mine, not that of any church … It’s all about God’s opinion which never fails.

The Holy Spirit aligns us to God’s opinion if we’ll let Him through humility and obedience.

 

[elvisman]

I’ve already explained my view. I won’t bore you or humor you further.

Where’s your proof?
Thanks for your opinion; thanks for your warning.
I don’t find our differences humorous at all. I do, however, question if you understand why God did things the way He did as I hear your views on things. However, I’ve NOT seen anything you say you believe to be true that would keep you from Heaven.

Agreed. Sounds a bit like surrogate pregnancy to me. Thanks.

**Okay - sounds like you simply believe what you’ve invented and are not open to the truth.

**I’ve never heard of one single theologian in history that espoused your bizarre claim of surrogacy. It also sounds like you don’**t really have a clue as to what a surrogate mother is.

**Finally, by claiming that Mary was simply a surrogate - you are denying Jesus’ human nature, which is heresy . . .

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Doki ,

Why must “God’s opinion” of Our Lady be so low? A surrogate mother only gives birth to a child and their relationship ends with all that is physical. But a true mother’s relationship with her child surpasses the flesh. A mother is part of her child’s life in every single way. Beyond feeding, clothing, and protecting him from harm, a mother cares for her child and is involved both socially and spiritually in his life. Mary did not leave Jesus to someone else’s care after giving birth to Him. She did all that is required of a mother with love and humility. She is not “surrogate.” Her very role in the life of Jesus following the Will of the Father defines motherhood itself!

+Peace

 

[benedictus2]

The Bible does NOT say there’s another candidate for Jesus’s mother. I didn’t say that either.

But since you said that Mary was not the mother, then there has to be a mother. Every human being has a mother. Jesus was fully human, so therefore Jesus had a mother.

Not true. I said there are at least three categories of mothers, one of which is surrogate.

Here are parts of my posts where you replied “sounds like a surrogate mother to me”
Benedictus: Only God can bring to existence. The mother and father are only the means by which God does this."
Benedictus: a female person who is pregnant with or gives birth to a child.
Since all mothers both fall under 1 and 2, then, you are therefore saying that there only surrogate mothers, no real mothers.

Both 1 and 2 define real mothers.

Was God created in Mary’s womb? If not, and God was in her womb, then it’s logical to use the term surrogate, IMO.

Nope God was not created in Mary’s womb BUT Jesus the God-Man was incarnated in Mary’s womb.so therefore Mary was his mother.

Jesus was both fully Human and fully Divine. The Second Person of the Trinity had no beginning, but Jesus the Man-God, a the point of the Incarnation.

Like everyone else who have disputed the term Mother of God, you make this same mistake.

 

[benedictus2]

A woman’s body creates the ovum. If a sperm enters her body, deposited by her husband, and fertilizes that ovum inside her, this mother is not a surrogate.

How do you know that the process that God took was not similar to this? How do you know that God did not use Mary’s ovum?

 

[benedictus2]

But by your definition of surrogacy, every single mother on earth fits that description.

Exactly. He just does not see it.

 

[benedictus2]

** To say that Mary didn’t create Jesus is as true as saying that ANY** mother does not create her children - GOD does.

This is a recurring flaw in the arguments of those in this thread who have denied that Mary is Mother of God.

They somehow have this notion that saying the Mary is the Mother of God means Mary created God. I wonder where they got this concept of mother hood.

I could imagine pro-abortion advocates believing this though.They probably reason since they created the baby so they can very well kill the baby too.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, that’s my opinion; you’ll just have to read what I’ve said on the issue. I really don’t feel like re-hashing here.

You have not said much save to say that the examples I gave were surrogacies when they are in fact explanations of true motherhood.

 

[Cinette]

I think it is largely a matter of words.

I have no problem with Mary being Theotokos as translated God-bearer. I think that Mother of God can raise confusion, especially among non-Christians. I believe that it is at least partially responsible for the Quran giving the Trinity as Father, Son and Mother.

Mother of God requires many qualifactions such as Mary did not produce Jesus’ divinity, she did not exist before Jesus and if God has a mother, who would His father be? Can you have a mother without a father?

I will quote from Augustine. (emphasis added)

(Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

(A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.iv.v.html

*I have just jumped in here. I need to ask you how do Protestants interpret Luke 1:43 “Any why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?” What do Protestants believe Elizabeth meant by “the mother of my Lord” ?

Cinette *

 

[GaryTaylor]

You have not said much

Here lies the fundamental problem.

Here’s the Protestant debate in the Nut-Shell

God is God, Mary is way to insignificate to be the Mother of God, come-on now, shes HUMAN!!!. Mary didn’t create God, you know that!!! She was only the mother of Jesus in his Human Nature, which has nothing to do with God/Christs Divine Nature. Matter of fact, if I’m not mistaken, its even promoted here the Human and Divine natures never left Christ upon death? The Human stayed behind? Right? Is this not the repetative proposition here?

So, back at square ONE…

How did the Human and Divine Nature existed togther in your humble opinion? How in fact was Gods Divine nature subjected then to the Human Nature Mary brings to the table by her generation of Christ through Birth?

How did the two natures live together in Christ if God did “not” humble himself and descend to Mary at a Human level? I would “LOVE” to hear this explained.

 

[Cinette]

Here lies the fundamental problem.

Here’s the Protestant debate in the Nut-Shell

God is God, Mary is way to insignificate to be the Mother of God, come-on now, shes HUMAN!!!. Mary didn’t create God, you know that!!! She was only the mother of Jesus in his Human Nature, which has nothing to do with God/Christs Divine Nature. Matter of fact, if I’m not mistaken, its even promoted here the Human and Divine natures never left Christ upon death? The Human stayed behind? Right? Is this not the repetative proposition here?

So, back at square ONE…

How did the Human and Divine Nature existed togther in your humble opinion? How in fact was Gods Divine nature subjected then to the Human Nature Mary brings to the table by her generation of Christ through Birth?

How did the two natures live together in Christ if God did “not” humble himself and descend to Mary at a Human level? I would “LOVE” to hear this explained.

*I don’t know if one can explain that really. You do not expect to understand everything about the Faith do you? Otherwise it would not be FAITH which is believing without doubting all that God had revealed because you trust God. Can you explain the Eucharist? Can you explain the Trinity? Can you explain the Transfiguration? Do you believe in these things? Yes? Well then, why must there be have an explanation for everything.

We believe that Jesus was true God and true man and that the “Word was made Flesh” The Word was God and was Flesh. Mary conceived Jesus in her holy womb. She was Jesus’ Mother - she was the Mother of God.

I don’t find that too difficult to believe.

Amen
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

*I have just jumped in here. I need to ask you how do Protestants interpret Luke 1:43 “Any why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?” What do Protestants believe Elizabeth meant by “the mother of my Lord” ?

Cinette*
*
CORRECTION
*
Luke 1:43 “Why has this happened to me that the mother of my Lord comes to me?”

 

[Dokimas]

Okay - sounds like you simply believe

what you’ve invented and are *not *open to the truth.

You are welcome to your opinion.

**I’ve never **