Jesus is God Means Mary Is The Mother of God?

[WBB]

Also how do you feel about Jesus’ response to the woman in
Lk11:27-28?
Do you think he was taking glory away from Mary?

On the contrary! He was giving glory to her!

While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

Our Lady was blessed not because she merely carried and nursed the Lord, but because she heard the word of God and observed it! For this, we owe her a debt of gratitude, for through her fiat mihi our salvation was procured.

 

[asteroid]

I must say I’m rather confused…

First, let me say that the syllogism as stated seems sound. And no disagreement with the major premise here, either…

But it does remind me of another syllogism that’s driven me absolutely crazy for quite some time, namely that since Jesus is God, and Jesus is a human male, then it follows that God is a human male. True?

The above is structured exactly the same as the original syllogism,

No, it is structured differently from the original syllogism:

The original syllogism:

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

Or to put it in letters

a is b
c is the mother is a
therefore
c is the mother of b

Or to simplify still further:

a is b
c is a
therefore
c is b (combining the premises gives c = a = b)

The syllogism as presented in this post:

since Jesus is God, and Jesus is a human male, then it follows that God is a human male.

Or in letter form:

a is b
a is c
therefore
b is c

This is a different structure entirely isn’t it? The form of the conclusion may be seen as being the same, but the form of the two statements leading to that conclusion is different.

It is also illogical. The conclusion “b is c” cannot follow from “a is b” and “a is c”. The only correct conclusion to the two premises here is “a is b and c” but we cannot conclude that “b is c”, only that “b” and “c” are two properties of “a”.

If the first premise stated “God is Jesus” then the conclusion could hold. But the premise would be false (according to normal theology).

In any case, the statement “Jesus is God” cannot be given as “a is b” without losing the full truth of the meaning of the statement.

Perhaps the doctrine of the Trinity and of the two natures of Christ cannot be subjected to my feeble symbolic logic attempts!

edit: Perhaps the word “is” can’t do justice to the truths expressed either.

 

[Tomster]

Someone may say that Jesus took only his body and not his divinity from Mary. This objection would be valid if this were merely a moral union, such as Nestorius posited, but not when the union is substantial. Since the body which she formed was, from the very first instant, the body of God, Mary herself became the Mother of God. We take only our bodies from our own mothers, yet are we not in all reality their children?

It is true that the conception of a human body calls naturally for the creation and infusion of the soul, while the conception which took place in Mary does not call naturally for the union of the Son of God with the humanity which the Blessed Virgin conceived. It does not call for it naturally, but it does call for it supernaturally, in a manner much more sublime and more worthy of God and Mary than anything that takes place in the natural order. For it was a conception prepared for by unique virtues and privileges; it was a virginal conception which befitted only God; it was produced by the Holy Ghost, and, according to the explanation of the angel, would make the very Son of God the son of Mary; the Blessed Virgin consented to it only after having received the promise that this conception would have the birth of God as its term.

 

[Mintaka]

I think the difference is that the Mary syllogism is talking about Mary’s relationship to God, whereas the Jesus syllogism is talking about God Himself. Just because the Trinity is One, doesn’t mean that each Person is exactly the same. I think you could validly say, “God is a human male”, if you meant “Jesus is truly a human male and also truly God”, or even, “After the Incarnation, the Son is both God and a human male”. (I think.) But you can’t extend that to “The Father is a human male”, “The Holy Spirit is a human male”, or “The Trinity is a human male”, because that would be factually incorrect.

Any time the logic of a syllogism contradicts the known facts, the syllogism has been constructed incorrectly. In this case, I think it neglected to mention several important facts, and that’s why it fails. But I’m neither a logician or a theologian, nor do I play one on the Internet.

Sometimes I think the mystery of the Trinity is that it’s so simple we can’t understand it. Same thing with eternity. If we could just wrap our human, temporal brains around that one simple concept, it’d all be perfectly clear!

Anyway, back to the topic.

Virtually all Christians agree that Mary is the Mother of God, even if they don’t all like to use the name. To say that Mary is just Christ’s mother or Jesus’ mother denies the Incarnation and the Trinity its full value. Nobody wants to be a Nestorian. (Even the historically Nestorian churches have mostly decided that being Nestorian was a mistake, or that they never really meant it that way.) It’s an amazing thing to say, and we shouldn’t forget that it’s amazing. But it doesn’t take anything away from God; it just makes His coming even more of a kind and complete descent to our level.

 

[puzzleannie]

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

wrong
Mary is Theotokos, Mother of God, as defined by magesterial Church teaching, most notable at the council of Ephesus.

There is no such thing as “the human part of Jesus as opposed to the divine part of Jesus”. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is one person, whole and entire, with two natures, one human, one divine. His divine nature has existed from all eternity. His human nature was assumed at the incarnation. A person cannot be divided. The Person growing in the womb of Mary, his Mother, was fully human and fully divine with no separation into “parts.” This doctrine is known as the Hypostatic Union. Attacks on this doctrine, and on the divinity of Jesus, were the reason the Church responded so definitely and so strongly to define and confirm Mary as Mother of God.

 

[Michael_Francis]

wrong
Mary is Theotokos, Mother of God, as defined by magesterial Church teaching, most notable at the council of Ephesus.

There is no such thing as “the human part of Jesus as opposed to the divine part of Jesus”. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is one person, whole and entire, with two natures, one human, one divine. His divine nature has existed from all eternity. His human nature was assumed at the incarnation. A person cannot be divided. The Person growing in the womb of Mary, his Mother, was fully human and fully divine with no separation into “parts.” This doctrine is known as the Hypostatic Union. Attacks on this doctrine, and on the divinity of Jesus, were the reason the Church responded so definitely and so strongly to define and confirm Mary as Mother of God.

PA,
Phil was being facetious.
MF

 

[MrS]

PA,
Phil was being facetious.
MF

it is a process… like justificatiion

Phil was being

Phil is being

Phil will be

go Phil, go

 

[franksv]

My bible says Mary was “highly favored” in Luke1-28 NIV
But in Jn 1:14, it says Jesus was “full of grace”
I don’t have any bible that says Mary was “full of grace” in LK1:28.
Also how do you feel about Jesus’ response to the woman in
Lk11:27-28?
Do you think he was taking glory away from Mary?

Luke 11:27-28 NAB

27
While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.”
28
He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

[27-28] The beatitude in Luke 11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus; see the note on Luke 8:21. Rather, it emphasizes (like Luke 2:35) that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.

I don’t see how that takes a bit of Glory from Mary.

Frank

 

[beckers]

Back on topic tho: Do you see anyone else who might even remotely qualify as the Mother of God? All three of the “Pillars of the Reformation” believed this: Can you refute them?

You shouldn’t try to throw the protestant fathers at people…well unless your trying to get them to be quite because everytime i throw out quotes from them nobody refutes them. They just kind of skip over them. I bet over half…no a third of protestant have not a clue as to what the protestant “fathers” thought about certain things.(You know that goes for catholic too because i brought this point up about Luther’s view of communion and people where amazed) I bet Luther and Calvin would be *Shocked *at what “their followers” proclaim in today’s world.

 

[TheGarg]

My bible says Mary was “highly favored” in Luke1-28 NIV
But in Jn 1:14, it says Jesus was “full of grace”
I don’t have any bible that says Mary was “full of grace” in LK1:28.
Also how do you feel about Jesus’ response to the woman in
Lk11:27-28?
Do you think he was taking glory away from Mary?

The latin vulgate, which is much older than your bible, says “full of grace”…

 

[YADA]

men Beckers and Church Militant:

The protestant claims that they interpret scriptures independently but this is not true. They interpret their beliefs, Christianity and Scripture based upon the context in which it was presented to them…ie if they are introduced to scripture as the sole authority, they believe it. They accept it as it is given [erroneous translations included] with the caveat that they can read it for themselves. They accept that Mary is just a woman [and a woman rebuked by Jesus] if that is the context presented to them. This, especailly if they are told the Catholic believes that Mary is elevated to a god and is called the Mother of God.

Depending upon how far removed from the early reformers their christian indoctrination is, they have little if any understanding of the foundation of their protestant faith.

The same can be said of catholics who read little church history and little of the written record of the early church fathers. This may be a sadness for Cathlics, the faithful catholic does have a teaching ministry that [hopefully] presents core christian beleifs faithfully to rely upon. The prtestant does not have this continuity of authoritative teachings and the humilty to submit to it.

Many protestants are surprised to learn how close the repformers were in their understanding of the christian ffaith, scripture and practice. Protestantism has fractured and changed so much that the reformers would probably not recognise somme denominations, non-denominations and sects as “Chirstian”…

Far easier to continue the assault than read their own history and ponder…oh those are the protestants that come home to mother church…

 

[Augustine22]

I think some people react against this because it’s Catholic. I know people that aren’t bothered by jumping all the long way from Baptist to Episcopalian but if you go the small distance from Episcpal to Catholic…egads!

Some of it looks like so many other heresy problems. Some people are legit in worrying about raising Mary up too far but by being so worried they go too far and make another error about Jesus.

Sheesh!

 

[Penitus]

The latin vulgate, which is much older than your bible, says “full of grace”…

Actually the original Greek text implies something such as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” Naturally, being the original Greek text, it is much older than the Latin or English translations.

 

[newbie1234]

The latin vulgate, which is much older than your bible, says “full of grace”…

Full of grace=plaras karitos in greek- is used twice, jn1:14 and acts6:8

Luke1:28 uses kexaritomena=highly favored, or make graceful

Why wouldn’t the original greek NT use the same “plaras karitos” in all three passages?
The 4th century vulgate translation of the original Greek NT is in errror.
It is important to note all these versions use “highly favored” in luke 1:28
RSV
ASV
ESV
NASB
NIV
KJV
NKJV

 

[beckers]

It sounds like an incubator LoL
No doubt, there are people saying that Mary is just an incubator to Jesus.

Even if she was “just an incubator” then what an incubator she was. She said yes to God, the father. She shared her body and blood with him for nine months. She fed him from her breast. She taught and raised him. By this very nature she felt a different pain then anyone else did when Jesus died. She knew that he was God but he was still her son. She still had to watch her own son die a painful death and then be laid in her arms just like a newborn child. Amen to her yes because i don’t know if i could have said yes. She is and always will be the Mother of God, The Queen Mother…

 

[parvenu74]

O.K., now that we succeeded in totally derailing poor RyanL’s thread about “Apologetics Zingers” with my innocent contribution (sorry Ryan), let’s start a new thread about the following statement:
Some folks (well, one non-Catholic Christian individual, anyway) took exception to this, going so far as to say that this is not true because Jesus is not God!

What say you?

To those with Faith, no explanation is needed; to those without Faith, no explanation is possible.

 

[Fidelis]

Luke1:28 uses kexaritomena=highly favored, or make gracefulWhy wouldn’t the original greek NT use the same “plaras karitos” in all three passages? The 4th century vulgate translation of the original Greek NT is in errror.

Luke 1:28 does indeed use “kecharitomene,” but the definition you give for it (highly favored) is not for “kecharitomene,” but for the simple word “charitoo.”

“Kecharitomene” means something much more. Perhaps this will help:

catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

 

[newbie1234]

Luke 1:28 does indeed use “kecharitomene,” but the definition you give for it (highly favored) is not for “kecharitomene,” but for the simple word “charitoo.”

“Kecharitomene” means something much more. Perhaps this will help:

catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

I don’t doubt Mary had grace and was blessed.
But to say she was full of grace then leads to the assumption that she was sinless.
If Mary was full of grace the word in greek would be “pleres charis” as used in JN1:14 when refering to Jesus.
We know Mary needed a savior Lk1:46 so she could not be full of grace.

 

[bankerdavid]

My bible says Mary was “highly favored” in Luke1-28 NIV
But in Jn 1:14, it says Jesus was “full of grace”
I don’t have any bible that says Mary was “full of grace” in LK1:28.
Also how do you feel about Jesus’ response to the woman in
Lk11:27-28?
Do you think he was taking glory away from Mary?

Depends on your translation, but get a Douhay-Rheims Bible:
26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women…

But aren’t you splitting hairs? From the Geneva Study Bible:
1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] {z} highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: {a} blessed [art] thou among women.​

(z) It might be literally rendered, full of favour and grace, and he shows immediately after, laying out plainly unto us, what that favour is in that he says, The Lord is with thee.

 

[newbie1234]

Depends on your translation, but get a Douhay-Rheims Bible:
26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women…

But aren’t you splitting hairs? From the Geneva Study Bible:
1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] {z} highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: {a} blessed [art] thou among women.​

(z) It might be literally rendered, full of favour and grace, and he shows immediately after, laying out plainly unto us, what that favour is in that he says, The Lord is with thee.

The term full of grace leads to Mary being sinless and the immaculate conception, and now she is co-redeemer and mediator. So the term has elevated Mary to near diety. That is the reason for splitting hairs.