Jesus is God Means Mary Is The Mother of God?

[exiled]

Not so…in fact the passage that you cite refutes you.

Were the Old Testament saints saved? By the sacrifice of Christ right? Yet they were not even alive when that sacrifice was made, right? Yet it was applied to them as well without regard to their temporal proximity to that sacrifice, correct?

Therefore, because Mary was born before that sacrifice she would also fall under that ex post facto sacrifice for sins. Hers was a preemptive application because next to Our Lord Himself she is the most unique soul in all of human history. (A self evident fact).

IOW, I’m saying that since the sacrifice of Christ extends in both directions in time then because all things are possible with God the scripture does indeed teach that she was immaculately conceived and since there is no evidence that she ever sinned (having a far more intimate personal relationship with Jesus than even we can!) it is not unscriptural or illogical to believe that she lived a life of sanctifying grace.

To assert that she did sin is an agenda driven unscriptural error.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

I LOVE CHURCH MILITANT!!!

 

[Fidelis]

After all this digression into the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual sinlessness of Mary and Sola Scriptura, in the end no one has been able to refute the simple statement that started all this:

Jesus is God
+Mary is the Mother of Jesus
= Mary is the Mother of God

 

[kleary]

No, Mary is “mother of the non-God part of Jesus.” OK, I’m done. I’ll let sandusky take over from there. :whacky:

Phil P

If Mary is the mother of “the non God part” of Jesus then a human being is now able to do something medically impossible- to give birth to a nature.

Mary was indeed a human being, and only capable to give birth to a person. Jesus Christ is a person, and He has two natures- human and divine that became totally intertwined so to say at the Incarnation.

Since the two natures of Jesus were combined at the incarnation and not seperate, and a human being can only give birth to a person not give birth to a “nature” then this Divine Person who is Jesus Christ was born to the Blessed Virgin- since this Divine Person is God then Mary is His Mother. End of story. To deny the title of Theotokas to Mary is to deny the truth of the incarnation and two natures in Jesus that are combined and not seperate.

HOWEVER…Protestants truly believe this as well, they just don’t feel comfortable calling Mary “Mother of God” for they feel it means “Mother of the Trinity”. The term “Mother of Christ” can be used today correctly unlike the heretics in the fourth century who used the term to deny the two combined natures of Jesus.

Ken

 

[Reformed1]

After all this digression into the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual sinlessness of Mary and Sola Scriptura, in the end no one has been able to refute the simple statement that started all this:

Taken in its Christological sense, there is nothing to refute.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Hi, I have my bachelor’s in biochemistry and am studying for my PhD in cell, molecular, and developmental biology, so I’ll be glad to jump in…

I would say that according to human genetics, that this is impossible, that they cannot be identical, because Jesus is male and Mary is female.

To elaborate, men have a Y chromosome, and a special gene on it (the SRY, for Sex-determining Region on Y) is responsible for activating the development of all male-specific characteristics. Without the SRY, the embryo will “default” to female. Females do not have a Y chromosome at all. Instead, they carry another X chromosome. So the sex chromosome complement for males is XY, and the sex chromosome complement for females is XX.

By the way, embryos with no X chromosome at all do not develop, and embryos with neither an X nor a Y chromosome carrying the SRY gene develop into females, since there is no SRY gene to override the “default” to female.

So at least according to human genetics, saying that Mary and Jesus had identical DNA does not sound very likely at all (and they were both human, correct?)

Zirconia

As a faithful Catholic of 38 years, I’d like to offer my experience in this matter.

God is capable of anything…

 

[Philthy]

Some would argue that God has existed before anything else, and Virgin Mary was born by Her parents; therefore, he/she concludes that She cannot be the Mother of God.

How do you answer to that?

Thanks!

That is quite simple and I apologize if it has already been answered.

Mary was not eternally the Mother of God - she became the Mother of God when God became fully human while remaining fully divine.

 

[deb1]

Like I said, if you don’t personally hear the Holy Spirit telling you NOT to kneel in front of, and pray to, or kiss the feet of your statues, then go right ahead.

From the time I was little, I always had a tugging toward Mary, the Mother of God. Perhaps it was because my own mother was so mentally instable that I so positively responded to the idea that Jesus loves me enough to share his mom with me.

So, no, I do not hear the Holy Spirit telling me that my respect for Mary is sinful or idolatry.

 

[beckers]

The immaculate conception was made doctrine in 1854.
Who was it revealed to in the church even before Luke was written?
And where would that be written.
It is no where to be found in the NT.
It is also no where to be found in OT prophecy.

ARGH!!! The doctrine was not just made up in 1854. Have you read the document??? The beginning of Ineffabilis Deus talks about the history of the dogma and the fact that the church is not proclaiming anything that was not already part of the faith. The doc is not too hard to read. Take sometime and read it…
newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

Here is a quote for you:
The same Roman Church, therefore, desired nothing more than by the most persuasive means** to state, to protect, to promote and to defend the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. **This fact is most clearly shown to the whole world by numerous and significant acts of the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors. To them, in the person of the Prince of the Apostles, were divinely entrusted by Christ our Lord, the charge and supreme care and the power of feeding the lambs and sheep; in particular, of confirming their brethren, and of ruling and governing the universal Church.

 

[Zirconia]

As a faithful Catholic of 38 years, I’d like to offer my experience in this matter.

God is capable of anything…

Yes, but if Jesus is human, wouldn’t it be reasonable to suspect that he did indeed develop, in at least some sense, as a human would?

I also feel I must point out I didn’t say anything was impossible, just that it didn’t seem too likely based on the way God created humans, and the limits He placed on our chromosomes.

In fact, I happen to believe that Jesus, being God, could certainly create His own Y chromosome, but then I also believe He had one, as a human, in the first place. Also, I see no reason not to believe that as a human, He also would have the full diploid set of autosomes, which He also directly created for Himself.

After all, if Jesus is fully human, why wouldn’t He share in any way in human genetics, human developmental biology, or human biochemistry?

And if there is to be an argument that Jesus is not genetically or otherwise biologically human, then we have much, much bigger problems than this to worry about here…

Zirconia

 

[Church_Militant]

Don’t you suppose that Our Lord grew and was taught the things that any normal human would need to learn? He was fully God and fully man. Maybe He would have to learn, but would learn perfectly?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Jonathan,

I haven’t read this whole thread so forgive me if this is a question that was answered a few posts ago.

Several popes have refered to Mary as a co-redeemer and co-mediatrix or very similar titles have they not?

John Paul the Great referred to Mary as the Co-Redemptrix. This is not “several”. This does not mean it’s a doctrine or a dogma of the Catholic Church. This doesn’t mean that it’s not true, either, though – or necessarily wrong.

A Pope’s personal interpretation or application of a phrase or a title has no bearing on the worldwide Catholic Church until it is defined dogmatically (made defide – or of the faith, i.e. required to believe to be saved). This hasn’t happened, and won’t. JPII was one of the biggest Marian Popes we’ve had in a long time and if anyone was going to proclaim the “5th Marian Dogma” (a nickname given to the title though it’s not a dogma), it most certainly would have been him.

 

[Church_Militant]

John Paul the Great referred to Mary as the Co-Redemptrix. This is not “several”. This does not mean it’s a doctrine or a dogma of the Catholic Church. This doesn’t mean that it’s not true, either, though – or necessarily wrong.

A Pope’s personal interpretation or application of a phrase or a title has no bearing on the worldwide Catholic Church until it is defined dogmatically (made defide – or of the faith, i.e. required to believe to be saved). This hasn’t happened, and won’t. JPII was one of the biggest Marian Popes we’ve had in a long

time and if anyone was going to proclaim the “5th Marian Dogma” (a nickname given to the title though it’s not a dogma), it most certainly would have been him.Well said! Probably better that I have done so far.

 

[newbie1234]

John Paul the Great referred to Mary as the Co-Redemptrix. This is not “several”. This does not mean it’s a doctrine or a dogma of the Catholic Church. This doesn’t mean that it’s not true, either, though – or necessarily wrong.

A Pope’s personal interpretation or application of a phrase or a title has no bearing on the worldwide Catholic Church until it is defined dogmatically (made defide – or of the faith, i.e. required to believe to be saved). This hasn’t happened, and won’t. JPII was one of the biggest Marian Popes we’ve had in a long time and if anyone was going to proclaim the “5th Marian Dogma” (a nickname given to the title though it’s not a dogma), it most certainly would have been him.

Wouldn’t you have some doubt when the Supreme infallible leader of your faith even entertains the thought of reducing the incredible redeeming sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to share that glory with Mary by calling her Co-Redemptrix?

 

[Church_Militant]

Wouldn’t you have some doubt when the Supreme infallible leader of your faith even entertains the thought of reducing the incredible redeeming sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to share that glory with Mary by calling her Co-Redemptrix

?If that was what was actually being done then perhaps so…however, properly understood, in the context that it has been discussed within the church your remark in no way reflects even the remotest meaning of the term as used.

The bolded part of your statement is not what John Paul the Great nor the rest of the Catholic Church is saying. You can continue to argue this and allege whatever you please, but it’s already been explained to you and if you refuse to accept that explanation then I’m wondering what your point is.

So far it appears that you are just being obstinate and refusing to accept facts presented by those who actually know what we are talking about.

 

[Unitas]

Wouldn’t you have some doubt when the Supreme infallible leader of your faith even entertains the thought of reducing the incredible redeeming sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to share that glory with Mary by calling her Co-Redemptrix?

Did he make such an assertion speaking ex cathedra? No? Then no, I’m not worried about it.

 

[newbie1234]

Did he make such an assertion speaking ex cathedra? No? Then no, I’m not worried about it.

What about the petition with the thousands of signatures that asked him to consider making it doctrine?
Doesn’t it raise a red flag to you?

 

[Church_Militant]

What about the petition with the thousands of signatures that asked him to consider making it doctrine?
Doesn’t it raise a red flag to you?

People can petition for anything they please, just as you and others can allege whatever they please, that neither makes it right or likely to change Catholic dogma.

The fact that nothing has been done on it speaks great volumes in its relative silence.

 

[Unitas]

What about the petition with the thousands of signatures that asked him to consider making it doctrine?
Doesn’t it raise a red flag to you?

The Church is not a democracy.

The Truth is not subject to the waxing and waning of popular opinion.

 

[MrS]

Really? The spouse of the holy spirit? So she’s the mother, and wife of God? So the church is her beloved daughter in law since Jesus’s wife is the church? I’m so confused! Help an RCIA candidate out!

Actually…

Mary was infused/blessed/graced by the working of the Holy Spirit to conceive the Lord…

So she is the “spouse” of the Holy Spirit, unlike any other

So she is the mother of God, unlike any other

So she is a child of God like us

Daughter, Spouse, Mother… wow… guess that she is pretty special… !!!

.

 

[water]

Actually…

Mary was infused/blessed/graced by the working of the Holy Spirit to conceive the Lord…

So she is the “spouse” of the Holy Spirit, unlike any other

So she is the mother of God, unlike any other

So she is a child of God like us

Daughter, Spouse, Mother… wow… guess that she is pretty special… !!!

.

it is so obvious, isn’t it?