Mother of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter blessedrosary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Mary is The Mother of Jesus
Jesus is Part of The Trinity
Mary is the Mother of the Trinity

The Father is Part of the Trinity
Therefor Mary is the Mother of the Father

The Father is the creator of Adam
Adam is the ancestor of David
And Mary is the Ancestor of David

Mary is David’s Grandmother and Granddaughter

Wouldn’t that be an incestus relationship?

Luckily I do not think that the logic follows from the get go…
Hydrogen is an indivisible part of water but hydrogen is not water.
So if I created Hydrogen from scratch I would be the creator of that Hydrogen but not of Water.

I could be wrong though… if someone has a document supporting that Mary is the Mother of the Trinity I would love to hear it but I do think that it is heterodox to have Mary the Mother of the Creator.
 
Mary is the Mother of Jesus, God. Jesus is the creator (The apostle writes ‘all things were created through Him, all things were created for Him’). Mary is the mother of the Jesus the creator.

But if you don’t understand the difference between the preexistant trinitarian nature of God and the incarnate human nature of God, you will never understand how God can both have a Mother and not have a Mother. The church teaches both at the same time. Not a contradition, a mystery!
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
If Mary is The Mother of Jesus
Jesus is Part of The Trinity
Mary is the Mother of the Trinity

The Father is Part of the Trinity
Therefor Mary is the Mother of the Father

The Father is the creator of Adam
Adam is the ancestor of David
And Mary is the Ancestor of David

Mary is David’s Grandmother and Granddaughter

Wouldn’t that be an incestus relationship?

Luckily I do not think that the logic follows from the get go…
Hydrogen is an indivisible part of water but hydrogen is not water.
So if I created Hydrogen from scratch I would be the creator of that Hydrogen but not of Water.

I could be wrong though… if someone has a document supporting that Mary is the Mother of the Trinity I would love to hear it but I do think that it is heterodox to have Mary the Mother of the Creator.
Click to expand...
Your are trying to understand a *spiritual matter * with the natural mind. It won’t work. Pray for guidance, try not to be stubbornly ignorant. Make room for the Holy Spirit. 😉
 
I think that what Shbboleth wrote is more satire on people who have difficulty accepting mystery, and end up tying themselves into logical knots trying to analyze everything.
 
Now back to my question, what is the history and meaning behind each of those titles?

Who and when was each title applied to mary, and what did that person understand a given title to mean?
 
Please give me a Chruch document on this…

People here are getting dangerously close to Sabellianism and/or Modal Monarchism.
 
Ahh I was right…

Mary is the Daughter of the Father, Wife of the Holy Spirit, and Mother of the Son.

She is not the mother of the Holy Trinity.
Kenneth J. Howell, Ph. D.
Mary is both a sign and an instrument of the unity coming from the Holy Trinity because she bears a unique relation to each member. Let’s see how Mary is related to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. First, however, a word of caution. In A.D. 431 the ancient Christian Church defined Mary as the Mother of God because the Church wanted to protect the full divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. This title, Mother of God (or better Godbearer), asserted that the child in Mary’s womb was nothing less than fully God and fully man. **But the title Mother of God never has been nor should be interpreted to mean that Mary is the mother of the Trinity. Mary bears a distinct relation to each member of the Trinity, but she is not the mother of the Father, nor of the Holy Spirit. **
Click to expand...
Kenneth J. Howell is the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought. He is also Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Now back to my question, what is the history and meaning behind each of those titles?

Who and when was each title applied to mary, and what did that person understand a given title to mean?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: I am waiting
 
Good job Shibboleth! You knew you were right. . .and so did I 👍 .

The problem often comes from this basic error: Mary is NOT the mother of Christ’s Nature (neither His divine nor His human nature.)

Shocked? You shouldn’t be. Mothers are mothers of persons, not natures. They may be said to be the origin, or pattern, or giver of a nature to their offspring, but not the mother of their nature.

So. . .did Mary give Christ His human nature. Yes. Did she give Him his divine nature? No.

Was Mary mother of His divine nature? No. Was she mother of His human nature? No.

Was she HIS mother? Yes. She was the Mother of Christ, Second PERSON on the Trinity, and therefore the Mother of God.

Since she was only the mother of One Person (and also obviously not the mother of *any natures) *she was certainly not the Mother of the Trinity, because the Trinity is three persons.

What do you think?
God Bless,
VC
 
Verbum Caro:
Good job Shibboleth! You knew you were right. . .and so did I 👍 .

The problem often comes from this basic error: Mary is NOT the mother of Christ’s Nature (neither His divine nor His human nature.)

Shocked? You shouldn’t be. Mothers are mothers of persons, not natures. They may be said to be the origin, or pattern, or giver of a nature to their offspring, but not the mother of their nature.

So. . .did Mary give Christ His human nature. Yes. Did she give Him his divine nature? No.

Was Mary mother of His divine nature? No. Was she mother of His human nature? No.

Was she HIS mother? Yes. She was the Mother of Christ, Second PERSON on the Trinity, and therefore the Mother of God.

Since she was only the mother of One Person (and also obviously not the mother of *any natures) *she was certainly not the Mother of the Trinity, because the Trinity is three persons.

What do you think?
God Bless,
VC
Click to expand...
Thats the point I have been trying to make, so thank you. Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of Jesus. It's that simple. Mary is the Mother of God and if you deny that you deny scripture. There is no need to interperet it.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Hi Blessedrose, many protestants understand the catholic meaning to mean, the creator or origiin of God.

They are correct that catholics ( maybe not all ) do raise mary up too high to the level that looks like false worship.

Mary being Jewish would rebuke the church for how they have raised her up too high.

No honest Jewish person, would be comfortable with how high you have raised up Mary.
Click to expand...
It is God himself who raised her up and made her “full of grace”.
 
40.png
blessedrosary:
Thats the point I have been trying to make, so thank you. Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of Jesus. It’s that simple. Mary is the Mother of God and if you deny that you deny scripture. There is no need to interperet it.
Click to expand...
Yes! Because Jesus has two natures, both Divine and human, and Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity (Incarnation), that is why we call her the Mother of God. In calling her that we are affirming the Incarnation and the fact that Jesus has two natures, Divine and human. ( Mary did not just give birth to the human Jesus.)
 
40.png
blessedrosary:
I have heard many protestants say that Mary is not the “Mother of God”. They claim that it is a label that exalts her more than she should be. So, if Mary is not the Mother of God, than you deny that Jesus is God, correct?
Please explain.
Click to expand...
To deny the mother is denying the son.
 
Daniel Marsh:
thus referring to him as lord, simply means master.
Click to expand...
So to be consistent with your reasoning, the tilte Lord should mean master, even when we call God “Lord”, correct? By the way, Daniel, do you believe Jesus is Lord, as Paul refers Him? Or, do you believe Jesus is the Emmanuel?
 
40.png
Milliardo:
So to be consistent with your reasoning, the tilte Lord should mean master, even when we call God “Lord”, correct? By the way, Daniel, do you believe Jesus is Lord, as Paul refers Him? Or, do you believe Jesus is the Emmanuel?
Click to expand...
Lord and Emmanuel are two different things , both of which Jesus is.
  1. He is our master thus in calling him Lord we are correct
  2. Emmanuel means Holy one , and he is indeed Holy ( if you dont believe i am accurate the Italian word/ name Emmanuela fm. translated means Holy one or Divine one , there is the latin word too but i forgot its spelling)
 
40.png
willy:
Lord and Emmanuel are two different things , both of which Jesus is.
Click to expand...
So we must presume that when we say Lord God, we are calling God with two different names then?
  1. Emmanuel means Holy one , and he is indeed Holy
Click to expand...
Now, I am not exactly sure where you got this from, but if we look at the passages that mention the name, Emmanuel would mean “God with us”, not just holy one.
 
Well just as you would say " head deacon" he is not only deacon, he is the head deacon. God is not only God but our master as well. His will is above all else. As there are two words, it is two titles.
Emmanuel I believe does mean both depending on the context it is used in. I could be wrong though, i could be thinking of another word that is similiar that means Holy One, and yes i have heard it mean God with us. Im assuming if you say Jesus is the Emmanuel, it means Jesus is the Holy One . Or if you were to say Jesus is Emmanuel ( possibly??:S) is means more along the lines of Jesus is God with us. I could be incorrect and seeing as you have posted more than I it could be quite possible your are more knowledable about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top