Jesus is God Means Mary Is The Mother of God?

[MrS]

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.

Mary needed and recognized her need for a Savior.

Her Savior was born into the woman of His choice, a spotless virgin… why would He take less… hence full of grace.

Maybe this will work for you…

A land owner sits on his porch surveying His property. He seen a man walking across the fields, and then sees him fall into a deep dirty well. The landowner goes to the well, reaches down, and pulls the man out.

Next day: the landowner sees a young girl walking across His fields. He goes out to her and stops her from falling into the deep dirty well.

Whom did the “Landowner” save?? Both of course… the first (and all of mankind) after they were born into sin with thier original sin… and the second, Mary, before she was conceived.

Catholics understand this as the Immaculate Conception… the Mary was conceived without original sin by the action of her Savior, and our Savior, the Lord.

Hence, when the Angel Gabriel appears to her, he does not call her Mary… he says “Hail… Full of Grace…”

The word chosen is a perfect past participle, and defines her new “name” and the condition she
had from conception,
has at the apparition where she says Yes to the Lord, and
will have for all eternity.

If she is not full of grace… the Bible is false.

.

 

[MrS]

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.

stop reading Lorraine Bettner or whoever is feeding you this stuff.

There is one redeemer… The Lord Jesus Christ
There is one mediator… The Lord Jesus Christ

This is what the Catholic Church has always taught, without exception. If you agree, then you agree with the Church.

As for Mary and her level of diety… there is some truth to that for all of us… Jesus does want us all to become holy, and we are afterall made in His image and likeness…

But to even imply that Catholics think of Mary as truly Divine, or part of the Trinity… if one goes down that road, one will lose all credibility for any discussion of Catholicism.

If I ask you to pray for me the Father, are you not in your own way mediating for me…

God does expect us to cooperate with His plan for our salvation.

Co-mediatrix is not far fetched at all.

.

 

[Fidelis]

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.

“Pleres charis” means simply “full of favor” and as used in John 1:14 is of a different tense and a different context from *kecharitomene *in Luke 1:28. Please read the article at the link I provided above.

We know Mary needed a savior Lk1:46 so she could not be full of grace.

No one denies that Mary needed a Savior but, as you must know, Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception is that her salvation consisted of being *preserved *from sin rather that cleansed of it like the rest of us were. If you are so unfamiliar with Catholic teaching on this topic as to not know that, I suggest you do a little research before you comment further. You can start here:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=100

The term full of grace leads to Mary being sinless…

Which is why the Bible refers to her in that way.

…and the immaculate conception,

Actually it’s the other way around: Her Immaculate Conception caused her to be full of grace.

…and now she is co-redeemer and mediator.

Actually the terms are “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix.” Besides, the Church no where officially cites these as titles of Mary. You really need to do your homework if you expect to be seen as credible.

…So the term has elevated Mary to near diety. That is the reason for splitting hairs.

The fact that Mary was created sinless does not make her Divine. If that were the case, Adam and Eve would have also been Divine.

 

[newbie1234]

“Pleres charis” means simply “full of favor” and as used in John 1:14 is of a different tense and a different context from *kecharitomene *in Luke 1:28. Please read the article at the link I provided above.
No one denies that Mary needed a Savior but, as you must know, Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception is that her salvation consisted of being *preserved *from sin rather that cleansed of it like the rest of us were. If you are so unfamiliar with Catholic teaching on this topic as to not know that, I suggest you do a little research before you comment further. You can start here:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=100

Which is why the Bible refers to her in that way.
Actually it’s the other way around: Her Immaculate Conception caused her to be full of grace. Actually the terms are “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix.” Besides, the Church no where officially cites these as titles of Mary. You really need to do your homework if you expect to be seen as credible.

The fact that Mary was created sinless does not make her Divine. If that were the case, Adam and Eve would have also been Divine.

Strongs concordance with Greek translation
Jn1:14 refering to Jesus “pleres charis” means full of grace
Lk1:28 refering to Mary “charitoo” means highly favored
Open a concordance and see for yourself.
You don’t have to go to any website.
Just open a greek translation bible or concordance if you have one.
The latin vulgate is an incorrect translation.

 

[Zirconia]

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.

Of course it’s factually incorrect; that’s why it’s been driving me up the wall.

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.

Of course, I am not a logician or a theologian either. Perhaps this is why Astroid needed to post his/her response to this as well.

I believe syllogisms that contradict known facts, but whose conclusions follow logically, are considered “valid but unsound.” So maybe this is one of them? Even if the major premise is revised per Astroid’s post.

Anyway, back to the topic.

Now leaving syllogism-land…

Virtually all Christians agree that Mary is the Mother of God, even if they don’t all like to use the name.

These are just my ideas concerning why the title gives so many people (Protestants) the creeps, even if it follows logically.

I think much of it has to do with the way we usually understand the word “mother” as it relates to any offspring. For example, it usually implies pre-existence (offspring not being around before their mothers), and so to say someone eternal has a mother will indeed start causing brain spasms

Then too is the problem that I would call the implication of shared nature, and I think this is where the most visceral reactions and severe hang-ups occur. The way I see it, the argument is based on the following reasoning, which is that if someone is referred to as the mother of a human, then it follows that she is also a human. And so this is where people will start objecting quite vociferously that calling Mary “Mother of God” somehow deifies her.

It has also occurred to me that this (and not simply mean-spiritedness) may quite possibly be at the root of some of the arguments concerning “Mary-worship” that seem to crop up so often between Catholics and Protestants…

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.)

Which are the “historically Nestorian churches?”

Zirconia

 

[asteroid]

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

If that’s the case (and personally I believe it is) then why do so many Catholic Bibles translate it as “highly favoured” instead of “full of grace”?

Even Hendrickson in his commentary published by Banner of Truth (rather anti-catholic publisher at any opportunity) says that “full of grace” is a perfectly acceptable translation. If Hendrickson can say that, then why can’t Catholic Bibles use it?

Just my little moan about Catholic Bibles.

 

[tptram]

On the contrary! He was giving glory to her!

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.

Bravo!!!
Thank you.

I heard this reasoning a number of times but it just now dawned on me.

Thanks again

Tak

 

[Fidelis]

Strongs concordance with Greek translation
Jn1:14 refering to Jesus “pleres charis” means full of grace
Lk1:28 refering to Mary “charitoo” means highly favored
Open a concordance and see for yourself…Just open a greek translation bible or concordance if you have one.

that’s exactly what I did – after first looking at the Greek text. If you do that you will find – as I have pointed out several times already – that the word used in Luke 1:28 is not simply charitoo, but kecharitomene. Please try to keep this distinction in mind. They are significantly different forms of the same root word charis.

You don’t have to go to any website.

Actually it might have helped you to go to the website I directed you to. Since it is obvious you didn’t, I am reproducing the applicable text:

The translation “Full of Grace” instead of “Highly Favored” or “freely beloved” is far more accurate to the Greek. The Ancient Syriac, Arabic and Latin versions bear the truth of this out. The translation “Full of Grace” was also approved by the early Christian fathers.

St. Luke wrote kecharitomene [a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo]. In secular Greek charis meant charm, that which attracts favor. It was used to translate Old Testament Hebrew hen which first meant a favorable attitude of God to us, then the expression of that favor, then what He gives as a
result of that favor. namely hokmah or beraka, wisdom or blessing. (Oo verbs means to put someone in the state expressed by the root, which here is charis. ) The word was not used broadly like NT charis which came to mean any gift from God to us. The net result was that charis could mean either favor or grace.

But now, a thing often overlooked: if God merely sat there and gave nothing but a smile, favor, then the human would do the good by his own power - which would be Pelagianism. So when we translate favor, we must keep this in mind, and usually would do better to translate grace. So then charitoo will mean to put into grace.

Luke 1:28 in the 1611 King James Version has in the Margin notes “Much Graced”

Further, in English we may use a noun to mark a person as the ultimate in his class. Kecharitomene is used here as her personal name. So just as Mr. Tennis is the ultimate in the category of tennis. --therefore she would be “Miss Grace”, much the same as full of grace.
catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

The Greek grammar is more more nuanced than just a simple concordance rendering of the primary word charitoo. If you do not take that into consideration, you will come to an erroneous conclusion.

 

[newbie1234]

that’s exactly what I did – after first looking at the Greek text. If you do that you will find – as I have pointed out several times already – that the word used in Luke 1:28 is not simply charitoo, but kecharitomene. Please try to keep this distinction in mind. They are significantly different forms of the same root word charis.Actually it might have helped you to go to the website I directed you to. Since it is obvious you didn’t, I am reproducing the applicable text:
The Greek grammar is more more nuanced than just a simple concordance rendering of the primary word charitoo. If you do not take that into consideration, you will come to an erroneous conclusion.

The webpage you are referring to is erroneous. I looked at it already twice. If you open up a concordance with Greek words you can do the investigation for yourself.
Much grace or some grace does not mean full of grace.
This is important because the RCC has used the Vulgate translation of Full of Grace to arrive at the conclusion that Mary was sinless. This is erroneous.
So if she is sinless, then there is the immaculate conception, then she becomes co-redeemer and co mediator. Do you see how a simple translation inaccuracy has led to Mary almost being equal with Jesus?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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.

She is NOT “co-redeemer and mediator” as you have claimed on another thread, Newbie.

When you are directed to the Catholic source (Pope John Paul II’s writings at vatican.va) you obviously ignore the source to argue your agenda.

That is the why you are “splitting hairs.”

And WHERE did you find that Fidelis’ quotation was “erroneous?”

On a Chick tract? Go to ANY non-denominational (Oxford University Press, for example) Greek-English dictionary and they will verify his assertions.

But maybe you shouldn’t, or you wouldn’t have anything to disagree with the Catholic teachings on the Theotokos, Ever Virgin, Immaculately Conceived without Original Sin, Mary.

 

[Reformed1]

She is NOT “co-redeemer and mediator” as you have claimed on another thread, Newbie.

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?

 

[VociMike]

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?

Apples are red and apples are sweet, does it follow that red is sweet?

 

[VociMike]

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?

If Mary is not the mother of God, then who is she the mother of?

Yes, God has existed before anything else, but God became incarnate at a certain moment in time.

 

[VociMike]

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.

This is not correct. Mary’s sinlessness and immaculate conception is not based on a passage in scripture. Rather, it was revealed to the Church before Luke’s gospel was even written.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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.

Not this argument again.

Of course Mary needed a savior, as did all of humanity. Catholic doctrine does NOT state that Mary somehow magically “saved herself”. This, in and of itself would be evelating her to the status of a Goddess. We do not teach this.

God the Father handpicked Mary, singled her out from all generations of holy women and saints and still chose her to be the mother of His Divine Son, Our Lord and Savior.

What surprises me is that most Protestants presuppose that Mary is a sinner, but no where in Sacred Scripture does it document one sin she committed throughout the whole life of Jesus – thought you guys were Sola Scriptura?

Adam and Eve, the first humans, were created sinless. Mary, the new Eve, by virtue of her status as the Mother of God, was preserved from the stain of Original Sin. This does not however take away her own free will; it was still her who said yes to the Lord God when He asked her to be the mother of His Son.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

This is not correct. Mary’s sinlessness and immaculate conception is not based on a passage in scripture. Rather, it was revealed to the Church before Luke’s gospel was even written.

Wrong. Will you please show me where she is the Co-Redemptrix (this is the phrase that you mean, not ‘co-redeemer’) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or a Church constitution which was promulgated ex-cathedra (when the Pope was speaking infallibly as the leader of all Christians and defining a matter of faith and morals).

She is NOT a mediator to the one Lord God (Heavenly Father), as that is a role only Jesus Christ can fulfill. She is, according to Catholic teaching, the Mediator of All Graces.

To learn what we mean when we use this title in reference to St. Mary, go here: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm.

For Christ as Mediator, go here: newadvent.org/cathen/10118a.htm.

To learn real Catholic doctrine, go here: www.scripturecatholic.com.

 

[Reformed1]

Wrong. Will you please show me where she is the Co-Redemptrix (this is the phrase that you mean, not ‘co-redeemer’) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or a Church constitution which was promulgated ex-cathedra (when the Pope was speaking infallibly as the leader of all Christians and defining a matter of faith and morals).

She is NOT a mediator to the one Lord God (Heavenly Father), as that is a role only Jesus Christ can fulfill. She is, according to Catholic teaching, the Mediator of All Graces.

To learn what we mean when we use this title in reference to St. Mary, go here: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm.

For Christ as Mediator, go here: newadvent.org/cathen/10118a.htm.

To learn real Catholic doctrine, go here: www.scripturecatholic.com.

The title of Mary as co-redemptrix or co-redeemer is a very old Catholic teaching is it not? Maybe not infallibly defined but it is a part of your faith is it not?

 

[VociMike]

Wrong. Will you please show me where she is the Co-Redemptrix (this is the phrase that you mean, not ‘co-redeemer’) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or a Church constitution which was promulgated ex-cathedra (when the Pope was speaking infallibly as the leader of all Christians and defining a matter of faith and morals).

She is NOT a mediator to the one Lord God (Heavenly Father), as that is a role only Jesus Christ can fulfill. She is, according to Catholic teaching, the Mediator of All Graces.

To learn what we mean when we use this title in reference to St. Mary, go here: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm.

For Christ as Mediator, go here: newadvent.org/cathen/10118a.htm.

To learn real Catholic doctrine, go here: www.scripturecatholic.com.

Umm, I didn’t say any of that. You’re responding to the wrong post.

 

[Bishopite]

The title of Mary as co-redemptrix or co-redeemer is a very old Catholic teaching is it not? Maybe not infallibly defined but it is a part of your faith is it not?

Yes it is old, but Mary as mediatrix is not a dogma. Yes part of our faith, but how we are to accept Mary as mediatrix isn’t defined. But Jesus came through Mary’s obedience in the salvific process so in some sense she is a mediator of sorts. And so are we when we share the gospel message with others, we become “mediators” also in one sense. The problem non-Catholics have is how they interpret the word “co” as though it means “equal” but that’s not the way it is used in Church writing. “Co” can also be used without the strict sense of being equal to someone. It is completely silly to think the same bishops who created the word “homoosius” meaning of the same substance and the word Triunitos or Trinity to explain God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’s relation as persons to one another yet still being one God, would be so wreckless as to put Mary (a created human being) as equal to Jesus who is God!
Mediatrix has always been used for personal peity and devotion to Mary NOT to worship her.

Also, Mary is the mother of a person, not just a nature, she’s not just the mother of Jesus the man. Jesus is a divine person but both a human person and divine one, 100% of both and thank God for the Catholic Church who being guided by the Holy Spirit, explained the hypostatic union for us.

 

[water]

Yes it is old, but Mary as mediatrix is not a dogma. The problem non-Catholics have is how they interpret the word “co” as though it means “equal” but that’s not the way it is used in Church writing.

eg: My co-worker happens to be able to promote or fire me. So, obviously, I do not have as equal authority as my co-worker; it is because he is my boss.