Mary, the Mother of God

[jlhargus]

The following observations are from a follower of Christ who is neither Catholic or Protestant: Martin Luther was a Catholic priest before he was defrocked. He tried to “reform” from within.

That Mary, mother of Jesus, the Christ, is the Mother of God is a dogma not found in scripture. This doctrine does go back to names like Nimrod and Astoreth.

JL: Jn1:1 the WORD WAS GOD Jn 1:14 the WORD was MADE FLESH. If God was MADE flesh and that flesh was born of Mary. Mary is mother of God made flesh. Mary is mother of God in time not from all eternity. Mary is mother of the God man, Jesus Christ, who is God come in the flesh.

1Jn4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: EVERY SPIRIT THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS COME IN THE FLESH IS FROM GOD, 3 but EVERY SPIRIT THAT DOES NOT acknowledge Jesus IS NOT FROM GOD. THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF THE ANTICHRIST, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Mary has also become a sort of co-redemptrix, another doctrine not found in scripture. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

JL: Mary is mediatrix par excellence in giving birth to Christ all grace comes thorough her because Christ the source of all grace came though her. She could have said no. Yet she said, behold the handmaid of the Lord let it be done according to thy word. Mary co-operated freely willingly and fully without self interest. Submitting totally to God.

All people of God are mediators in that we can mediate by witnessing, correcting, praying or offering our sufferings in union with Christ, for those who do not know Christ. when we suffer, witness or live for Christ we are co-redeemer’s with Christ in that he uses us to touch others even as he used Mary to touch all humanity thru her co-operation. Our co-redeeming touches maybe one or two or even thousands, depending on the person and the grace God gives to our co-operation, if we do nothing with our gift we may loose our own soul as the man who did not even get interest on the talent given him by the Lord, Mt 25:24-30.

This does not take away from Christ the one mediator, Christ shares his mediatorship and all he has and is with his people. He shares his priesthood with all his people making us a royal priesthood.

COL 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions FOR THE SAKE OF HIS BODY that is THE CHURCH [Uniting with Christ our sufferings we become co-redeemers with Christ. Christ’s afflictions lack nothing but he wants us to share in his work, which is our priestly duty.]

1 COR 3:9 For WE ARE LABOURERS TOGETHER WITH GOD ye are God’s husbandry ye are God’s building

3 JN 1:8 We therefore ought to receive such that we might be FELLOWHELPER TO THE TRUTH.

Jms 5:19 Brethren if any of you do err from the truth and one convert him
20 Let him know that HE WHICH CONVERTETH THE SINNER from the error of his way SHALL SAVE A SOUL FROM DEATH and shall hide a multitude of sins.

1 TIM 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this THOU SHALT BOTH SAVE THYSELF, AND THEM THAT HEAR THEE.

 

[jlhargus]

Is it possible there is a “Christian” faith and practice which does not come from Rome, Constantinople, Wittenberg, Canterbury, Salt Lake City, etal? Yes. Go back to the shores of Galilee.

JL: It is not only possible it happened, FROM Galilee TO Rome. Two of the greatest brothers, Peter and Paul, went from Palestine to Rome, where both were martyred. The successor of Peter is the bishop of Rome, and holds the keys of the Davidic kingdom a type or foreshadowing of the regenerated and restored spiritual kingdom of Israel in the new covenant (Mt 19:28). Christ the Son of David is king in David’s line, who will build a house for God, (2Sam 7:12-14).

Peter is the first minister (prime minister) [Isa22:19 I will drive you from your station 20 I will call my servant Eliakim 21 I will commit your government to his hand he shall be a father to the people of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay on his shoulder so he shall open and none shall shut he shall shut and none shall open]

Eliakim will be the new Prime Minster and called father of Jerusalem, in the Davidic Kingdom, he will succeed Shebna. So in the regenerated spiritual Kingdom of David, of which Christ is now king, Peter is will be appointed Prime Minister and called father=pope in the new Jerusalem=Church. The keys indicate the holder has authority over the other royal ministers (or apostles) as they do not receive keys, also indicates the head office has successors. When the office is vacant it is filled by the King in David’s line, who is Christ, with another by giving of the keys. Jesus alluded to this passage when giving the keys to Peter, Mt 16.

Incidentally if Christ is King in David’s line, his mother, which all generations will call blessed, is Gebirah (Queen Mother) 1Kings 2:19. From Solomon the son of David, who built a house for God, there was an office of queen mother in the Dividic Kingdom, the type and foreshadowing of the regenerated spiritual Kingdom. The king Christ, the Son of David, is building a habitation for God of living stones.

Jesus called out fishers of men. He said He would never leave them nor forsake them. He has kept His promise. The gates of Hades have not prevailed–the battle still rages for the souls of men and women.

JL: Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT? [Can an invisiable church SEND anyone?]

Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES; JN 17:18 As you have SENT me into the world I also SENT them into the world 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE CONSECRATED IN TRUTH. 20 I do not pray for these alone but for those who will BELIEVE IN ME THROUGH THEIR WORD 21 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE as you Father are in me and I in you THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE you SENT ME.]

Christ is praying for one specific VISIBLE sent group, the Apostles Fellowship, whom he consecrated in truth. Hearing their word and being one in fellowship, with THEM, the world may believe the Father sent him. I don’t think Christ meant, he would only be with that fellowship and it would only be one, just while the apostles were alive, but to the end of the world.

[Mt 28:16 THE ELEVEN disciples 18 JESUS SPOKE TO THEM, ALL POWER IS GIVEN TO ME in heaven and in earth 19 GO TEACH ALL NATIONS BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 TEACHING to observe ALL things whatever I have COMMANDED you I AM WITH YOU always even TO THE END.] Can an invisiable church teach all nations till the end?

That’s the great commission to the Church, the apostles fellowship. Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, sent with his authority the apostles to TEACH ALL to observe what he taught, they were to go to all nations (universal, catholic). Only the apostles were sent to teach all nations, with the authority of Christ. Christ promised to be with them till the end of the world. Those individuals would not be around till the end, but their SENT successors in the Apostolic Fellowship would, by passing on their authority to teach, sanctify and rule by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, in an unbroken line, till the end.

Who is on the Lord’s side? Where will we be in a hundred years? Selah, James Least

JL: Those who are faithful in the household of God the Church the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15, Selah. Not being a prophet and not knowing the hearts of others. I do have the hope and confidence if I and all who persever in the Lord till death, will be with the Lord in a hundred years. That could be with the Lord in soul or BOTH body and soul if after the resurrection.

 

[James_Least]

\ At some point however, God will send strong delusion–such that some would believe a lie.\

No chance that YOU are the one who is deluded, is it?

When two people disagree, they both cannot be right–they could both be wrong. What is the standard which decides? Scripture alone? Scripture and tradition? It is futile to debate without an agreed standard of arbitration–which we do not have at this point.

Where will we be in 100 years?

 

[jimmy]

…They also seem to have a problem with Mary being “mater de theos”. There are schisms of dogma which go back 15-16 hundred years…

James Least.

No, the Orthodox have no problem with Mary being called Mother of God.

The question Christ asked the apostles in Matt.16 is the essence of Christian faith. He said, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter responded with the affirmation, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is the essence of what we believe and it determines all subsequent questions. Jesus being the Son of the living God is a serious statement. It is the affirmation that the infinite, uncircumscribed God became man. All dogma is summed up in this one answer by Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” At Nicaea the Arians said that Christ was created and the truth prevailed and it was affirmed that Christ was the Son of the living God, consubstantial with His Father. At Ephesus and Chalcedon it was affirmed that He truely became man. This is where Mother of God comes in. Mary is Mother of God because God truely became man. The Second Person of the Trinity uinited to Himself the whole of human nature and made it His own. That is an essential statement, the flesh of Jesus was that of the Son of God. If this is the case then Mary is also the Mother of God just as it is true that God suffered and was crucified and died in the flesh.

The schism you speak of that is 15 hundred years old was about the question of who Christ is. It is that between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholics. The question was concerning the unity of Christ. The Orientals spoke more strongly about the unity of Christ and actually called the Greeks and Romans Nestorian heretics, dividing Christ into two. Both sides would agree that Mary is the Mother of God. In fact, the Oriental Orthodox insisted even more firmly on the Christology that affirmed Mary as Mother of God and that is why there has been a schism. Both sides agree that God was made incarnate through the virgin Mary and became man consequently that makes her the Mother of God. There have been agreements that have essentially stated that the Christology of the two Churches is essentially the same.

 

[jimmy]

When two people disagree, they both cannot be right–they could both be wrong. What is the standard which decides? Scripture alone? Scripture and tradition? It is futile to debate without an agreed standard of arbitration–which we do not have at this point.

Where will we be in 100 years?

The problem is that you have turned the faith into pure rationalism. You have divorced the Holy Spirit from the Church and claim that the Church erred until the coming of the protestant tradition had to deny all the previous history. Now you have modern protestantism which focuses solely on the bible, and the only way they can read it without being factious is in a relativistic and rationalistic way so that there is no dogmatic truth that can be gleamed from it. The rationalism is found in the historical critical method which subjects the scripture to a hypercritical reading that ultimately undercuts the scriptures when divorced from tradition.

Tradition is essential to human thinking and it is absolutely impossible to divorce yourself from tradition. Modern society with its denial of tradition and faith has its own form of tradition. It is what underlies our thinking; the milieu or medium in which we live. By denying the Christian tradition of the first fifteen centuries protestants essentially opened the door for an atheistic tradition, which is found in rationalism.

 

[Mannyfit75]

When two people disagree, they both cannot be right–they could both be wrong. What is the standard which decides? Scripture alone? Scripture and tradition? It is futile to debate without an agreed standard of arbitration–which we do not have at this point.

The Bible says, Matt.18;[17]

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

If there is any disagreement between Christians on issues concerning doctrine, tell it to the Church. Only the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is right. When she declared Mary as the Theotokos, or Mother of God. It is what it is. The Church got it right, your problem with Mary carrying the title Mother of God is your own misunderstanding of the problem. The title itself is more about Jesus than Mary. That title identify Jesus Christ as truly God. He is after all, Emmanuel, God is with us.

Any Christian who denies this, denies that Jesus is Emmanuel. That itself is blasphemous.

 

[Parascheva1014]

That Mary, mother of Jesus, the Christ, is the Mother of God is a dogma not found in scripture.

The authority of scripture is a dogma not found in scripture. As is trinitarian theology and the dual natures of Christ. Which is mainly where the idea of Mary being the Mother of God came from. More correctly she is the Theotokos which means “Birth giver of God” because she bore in her womb Christ who is also God. See if you can follow:

1. Christ is fully God and fully man without confusing or subtracting one from the other. This is called the dual natures of Christ
2. The Incarnation is when God entered his own creation and became man in the womb of Mary. It’s a miracle, or a mystery.
3. Since Christ is God and since He was also born of Mary, She is often called the “Mother of God”

That’s all that means. It doesn’t mean anything else. It does not imply anything about Mary. It is a title meant to say that Christ was fully God and fully Man. His humanity is seen in the term “Mother” since only someone born can have a mother and his divinity is seen in the term “God”. The title Theotokos is given to Mary to point to a true understanding of who Christ is. Not to divinize her.

 

[bpbasilphx]

When two people disagree, they both cannot be right–they could both be wrong. What is the standard which decides? Scripture alone? Scripture and tradition? It is futile to debate without an agreed standard of arbitration–which we do not have at this point.

The Bible itself says, “The CHURCH of the Living God, the pillar and ground of truth.”

Jesus said, “If anyone will not HEAR THE CHURCH…”

In other words, the very Bible to which you appeal says that the CHURCH is the standard and arbitrator.

That Mary is Mother of God (which words are about who JESUS is) is not up for debate or discussion.

 

[agiosotheos]

The schism you speak of that is 15 hundred years old was about the question of who Christ is. It is that between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholics.

Don’t forget about the schism of the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[agiosotheos]

That title identify Jesus Christ as truly God. He is after all, Emmanuel, God is with us.

Any Christian who denies this, denies that Jesus is Emmanuel. That itself is blasphemous.

Nestorius confounded the association:

“If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema.”

 

[James_Least]

The Bible itself says, “The CHURCH of the Living God, the pillar and ground of truth.”

Jesus said, “If anyone will not HEAR THE CHURCH…”

In other words, the very Bible to which you appeal says that the CHURCH is the standard and arbitrator.

That Mary is Mother of God (which words are about who JESUS is) is not up for debate or discussion.

I think I kind of agree with the “pillar and ground part”. (We seem to have different definitions for the same words.) I am curious as to how one tells things to the universal church which never meets, visibly or invisibly.

If such things are not debatable, why all the church councils? Vatican II seems to have identified a giant schism among the faithful. There are many catholics who regard the Holy See as apostate. Are we going through a period of anti-pope? Who really has the keys of Mt. 16? Who are the usurpers?

Choose wisely.

Peace,

James Least

 

[James_Least]

Nestorius confounded the association:

“If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema.”

Confounded to be sure and anathematized as well. Can anathemas be recinded? Who is keeping these records up to date? Do eastern anathemas override western anathemas? Now what?

Yes, Immanuel, God with us, is one of the many titles of Jesus. He is also: The Christ, The Anointed One, Son of the Living God, Messias, etal.

I am in total agreement with the teaching of Mt. 16–"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God… My departure is to whom did Jesus give the keys? This is pivotal to the argument. The holy see stands or falls in the meaning of these scriptures. Apostle Peter was either the first in a consecutive line of papal authority or he was not. If the holy see is the holder of the keys, all others are usurpers. The antithesis is obvious. The issue of usurpation applies also to those who would reform usurped authority–which is no authority at all. This becomes a bit of a dilemma in terms of authorization. The world is filled with counterfeit religion. Some of it goes all the way back to the first family–Cain tried to change the sacrifice of blood to herbs of the field. It did not wash. It still does not wash.

I am not a protestant in the modern sense of the term. My spiritual forefathers were silently protesting heresy for sixteen centuries before Luther, etal, were dubbed anathema. He had a problem with us too. We had no inquisitions–but survived several. Some recanted, most did not. We are still out here–crying in the wilderness. There are still some lost sheep out there. Bring them in.

Have a blessed day.

James Least.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think I kind of agree with the “pillar and ground part”. (We seem to have different definitions for the same words.) I am curious as to how one tells things to the universal church which never meets, visibly or invisibly.

The subject of discussion here is about "Mary, the Mother of God. The issue you are trying to push has nothing to do with the subject at all.

If such things are not debatable, why all the church councils? Peace,

James Least

The debate behind the Mother of God ended in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D in a Church Council (which is recognized as valid by both the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and most traditional Protestant Churches). Anyone who denied Mary as the Mother of God is has been anathemized like Nestorius.

Nestorius believed that no union between the human and divine were possible. If such a union of human and divine occurred, Nestorius believed that Christ could not truly be con-substantial with God and con-substantial with us because he would grow, mature, suffer and die (which he said God cannot do) and also would possess the power of God that would separate him from being equal to humans.

What he taught is contrary to the orthodox belief of who Jesus Christ is.

Vatican II seems to have identified a giant schism among the faithful. There are many catholics who regard the Holy See as apostate

According to who? The last major schism was in 1054 with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Current times have shown dialogue between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic leaders. Lately, the Russian Patriarch calls for the Christian unity.

Any Catholic who regards the Holy See as apostate are going against Jesus himself because they reject Jesus’ prime minister who is the Pope, himself, the successor of St. Peter.

Are we going through a period of anti-pope?

Nope. The current Pope is the current successor of St. Peter, which can be discuss in another thread!

Who really has the keys of Mt. 16?

St. Peter and his successors have the keys of the Kingdom. Like I said, you are asking questions that is not RELATED to this thread! So make a new one topic concerning Church Authority.

Choose wisely.

You choose wisely because you are attempting to derail this thread by posting QUESTIONS not related to the SUBJECT.

 

[Mannyfit75]

James Least, do you deny that Mary is the Mother of God; Jesus Christ, who is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the Word made flesh, who is both God and Man?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am not a protestant in the modern sense of the term. My spiritual forefathers were silently protesting heresy for sixteen centuries before Luther, etal, were dubbed anathema
James Least.

This has nothing to do with the subject. Keep this thread within the discussion

 

[James_Least]

James Least, do you deny that Mary is the Mother of God; Jesus Christ, who is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the Word made flesh, who is both God and Man?

What is this? An inquisition in cyberspace?

I believe that the virgin called Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Christ. Jehovah has no mother nor father.

I will not recant.

Now what?

Peace,

James Least

 

[Mannyfit75]

What is this? An inquisition in cyberspace?

It isn’t an inquisition. It is to see how you understand the nature who Jesus Christ is.

I believe that the virgin called Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Christ. Jehovah has no mother nor father.

Jehovah is a mistranslation of God’s name. God is properly called, YHWH or Yahweh.

Jesus Christ does have a mother, since St. Paul that Jesus was born under the law, born of a woman. Without Mary, Jesus would not have his body. Since it is from Mary that Jesus have a body. Her fiat is her faith in God, the Father when she said, “Be it done unto me according to your word.” At that very moment in salvation history, the Spirit of the Lord came upon our Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Word dwelts amongst us.

Jesus was before time and space. The title Mary, Mother of God is Christ center because this title questions who Jesus is. That Jesus is both God and Man. The flesh of Jesus comes from Mary, but his divinity comes from the heaven because that is where he came from. He is one with the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Three Divine Persons BUT ONE God.

What does this title Mother of God mean to Mary? Well, it merely states that Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ. Who is Jesus Christ. He is God,the 2nd Person of the Trinity. The title DOES not means Mary is the Mother of God, the Father, or the Holy Spirit.

The Christian Fathers spoke often that Mary is the daughter of God, the Father,the mother of Jesus, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

The title does not claim that God have a human mother or father since God has neither beginning nor end. He is eternal. Your human lacks the mystery of God, so the Church teachings make it easy for us to understand the nature of Jesus Christ.

Let me make it easy for you.

In the Beginning was God, and the Word was with God, and the Word is God…

and the Word was made flesh and dwelts amongst us.

We both agree that this Word is God. Correct? This Word made flesh is Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Correct?

We also know that a Jewish woman gave birth to Jesus and her name is Mary. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God, Jesus Christ, 2nd Person of the Trinity. Why? because the Word became flesh because of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary. So Christians everywhere can comfortably say, Yes! Mary is the Mother of God, or the Theotokos. God-bearer!

 

[James_Least]

Does one get extra points for saying: Holy Mary, Mother of God? How many does it take to get beatified? Sorry, Manny, this Christian is really uncomfortable with the veneration of any mere mortal.

What is your take on Luke 11:27? The veneration of the womb and paps is countered with a yea, rather… What does the Douay-Confraternity say?

Have a blessed day,

James Least

 

[Mannyfit75]

I will quote Apolonio Latar to make my point. He writes,

**Many Protestants are so anti-Catholic that they would find any Catholic dogma to argue about even though it isn’t worthy of an argument. One example of a dogma is the title of Mary: Mother of God. Anyone with common sense would not disagree with this dogma, but sometimes, common sense isn’t so common these days.

Fulton Sheen writes,

"It will be discovered that so called Christians who think they believe in the Divinity of Christ but do not believe in Mary as the Mother of God fall generally into four ancient heresies. They are Adoptionists, who believe that Christ was a mere man but after birth was adopted by God as His Son. Or they are Nestorians, who held that Mary gave birth to a man who had a close union with Divinity. Or they are Eutychians, who decided the human nature of Christ and hence made Mary merely, an instrument in a theophany. Or they are Docetists, holding that Christ’s nature was only a phantom or an appearance. Those who are offended at reverence paid Mary, if they will analyze their thoughts, will discover that they are holding a Docetist or some similar ancient error. Even if they profess the Divinity of Christ in His earthly existence, such people shrink from affirming that His human nature is glorified with Him at the right hand of the Father, where He makes intercession for us. As some no longer think Christ as God, so some no longer think of Christ as a glorified Man. If He is no longer Man, the relation of Mary to Him extends beyond Bethlehem and Calvary even to His Mystical Body the Church. No one, therefore, who thinks logically about Christ can understand such a question as: ‘Why do you speak so often of His Mother?’ " (The World’s First Love, pg 71)

Jesus never ceased to be God in the womb nor after He was born. And His mother was Mary. As Cyril of Alexandria writes,

“When (the Word) took His most chase body, animated by an intelligent soul, from the Holy Virgin, and came forth a Man, He did not cease to be God nor did He reject the dignity of His own preeminence; for in this, as I said, no change is known.” (Against the Emperor Julian, 8)

My Protestant friend who agrees with me on this dogma made this logic: “Anyone with common sense knows that Jesus was the God-man. Who is the mother of this God-man but Mary? Would the Protestants be more relaxed on this dogma if we call Mary the mother of God-man?” We see how any logical person would not disagree on this dogma. Let us examine this logic. Mary is the Mother of God-man. Take off the word God, and we would have Mother of Man. Is it correct to say this? Of course it is. How about we take off the word man instead? Maybe my friend is right. He may be wrong though, because many anti-Catholics would just love to debate on this dogma.

One might say, “If Mary is the Mother of God, does that mean she is the mother of the Trinity?” Well, to make them go in the right direction, let us relate Mary to the Persons of the Trinity. Mary is the daughter of the Father; therefore she is the daughter of God. Mary is the wife of the Spirit; therefore she is the wife of God. And of course, Mary is the mother of Jesus therefore Mary is the mother of God.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

He continues to write,

**
I think it is worth quoting the early Church Fathers to prove this dogma –

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit. He was born and baptized so that by His submission He might purify the water.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letters to the Ephesians 18,2)

“The Virgin Mary being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5,19,1)

“This Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity; And though still a Virgin she carried a Child in her womb; And the handmaid and work of His wisdom became the MOTHER OF GOD.” (St. Ephraim, Songs of Praise 1,20)

“After this, we acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; who bore a body not in appearance but in truth, derived from the MOTHER OF GOD.” (Alexander of Alexandria Letters, 12)

“Accordingly, the Son of God became Son of Man, so that the sons of man, that is, of Adam, might become sons of God. The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly and eternally, is He that is born in time here below, of the Virgin Mary, the MOTHER OF GOD” (The “great” Athanasius, Incarnation of the Word of God, 8)

“Many, My beloved, are the true witnesses to Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven to His Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary. The Virgin MOTHER OF GOD bears witness” (The “great” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 10,19)

“If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is the MOTHER OF GOD, he is at odds with the Godhead.” (Gregory of Nazianz, Letters 101)

" who took on the human flesh and soul; being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, He reshaped man to perfection in Himself, from Mary the MOTHER OF GOD through the Holy Spirit." (Epiphanius of Salamis, The Man Well-Anchored 75)

“When, therefore, they ask, “Is Mary Mother of Man or Mother of God?” we answer “BOTH!” Mother of Man because it was a Man who was in the womb of Mary and who came forth from there; and MOTHER OF GOD, because God was in the Man who was born” (Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Incarnation 15)

Council of Ephesus (431)

Canon 1: “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.”

I can quote many more and if anyone wants to I would love to quote. It is clear that the early Church Fathers believed in this dogma. I wonder though, why would anyone want to be the new Nestorius? This dogma is probably the most simple of all. The reason perhaps is that it is Catholic. If the modern “Nestorians” do accept this, it would mean that they agree with a Mary doctrine, and no Protestant would want to do that, especially those who are opposed to ECT.

I wonder where Protestant apologetics are going these days. They would rather be associated with an old error, than to agree with Rome.

Apolonio Latar**