Non-Catholics, how is Mary not the Mother of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Answering the topic question: because God pre-existed her. Mary was the ceregate of Jesus.

I did not pre-date my Mom. God used on of her ovum to produce me. I’m not convinced God used one of Mary’s ovum to produce Jesus.
What do you think Scripture means when the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will “conceive” and bear a son?

You are referencing yet another heresy here, where Mary was claimed to be a passage through which Jesus was born into the world, but was not actually born “of” her.

If He is not born of her seed, then He cannot fulfill the prophesy of Genesis in the protoevangelium. He also cannot be the Son of David.
 
I had mentioned in another thread why this confuses me.
Here’s where I’m coming from.
Jesus = God
AND
Mary = Mother of Jesus

THEREFORE
Mary = Mother of God

See my confusion?
But, people say "Mary is the mother of Jesus, not God’ and I say ‘But Jesus IS God, right?’ and they say ‘Yes, but she is not the mother of God’ and then this is me -->:confused:

And some people say she gave birth to his human nature, not to Him, but that’s just nonsense. When I gave birth to my children I gave birth to a WHOLE PERSON, not a nature. How do you give birth to a nature? 🤷

Okay, so help me out. I know many non-catholics who defend their positions well, and most of them are here on CAF!! 🙂 So, a better understanding of this would be greatly appreciated. Also, if anyone has any links to the early Church Fathers who did not believe Mary to be the mother of God, and what they called her instead, that would help, too. I’m on something of an ECF kick right now. Thanks again in advance for your time!

PS - Also, an understanding of how Elizsabeth calling mary the Mother of my Lord differs from the term Mother of God. I don’t get that either.

I’m no ttrying to attack anyone’s position. This is something I simply don’t get. Thank you!
I am not Catholic, but I believe that Mary is the Mother of God.
 
it is this very heresy that was being addressed when the term “Theotokos” was adopted by the Church. It is a direct response to the denial of the incarnation.
I see no denial of the incarnation, just a different understanding of Mary.

[SIGN]Originally Posted by Araninski
your son is your brother/sister in Christ believe it or not, you only gave birth to his/her human nature.The same happen with Christ, with the difference The Son of God was not “born”, He already was because He is God. What was born was His human nature, you cannot give birth to Something that already was, only to something that wasn’t.[/SIGN]
 
JL: Luke uses the same word for Elizabeth conceiving in LK1:31 as he does for Mary conceiving in Lk1:31 & Lk2:21

Gal4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,] MADE same word as Word was MADE flesh.

Rm1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was MADE of the seed of David according to the flesh;] Same word as the Word was MADE flesh.

Phil2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:] MADE same word as Word was MADE flesh.

The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word BECAME FLESH, GOD BECAME FLESH=MAN. That MAN who IS God, was conceived in the womb of Mary, that’s how GOD BECAME MAN. God BECAME MAN at a point in TIME. God was NOT MAN until conceived and born of Mary Mother of God. To deny Mary is MOTHER OF GOD is to say Jesus’ FLESH is NOT GOD’S FLESH. Which is to say God the Word did not become FLESH=MAN, which is the spirit of anti-christ.

1Jn4:3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
We seem to agree that there was a time that God the Son did not have flesh and God use Mary as the vessel for the incarnation when God the Son entered Human Flesh.
 
What do you think Scripture means when the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will “conceive” and bear a son?

You are referencing yet another heresy here, where Mary was claimed to be a passage through which Jesus was born into the world, but was not actually born “of” her.

If He is not born of her seed, then He cannot fulfill the prophesy of Genesis in the protoevangelium. He also cannot be the Son of David.
I’m sure you’ve never thought that you explanation here may be limiting God.
 
What exactly does the Immaculate Conception have to do with Mary and Joseph having other children?

I fear that this is another example of your not knowing the faith you left behind. The Immaculate Conception–what is it, Pat? Don’t google, just answer from your memory of being Catholic.
This is another example of you distracting from the point. In and of themselves, they are not related, but in the Maryology it is linked closely. It just means she was supernaturally preserved from the stain of original sin in it simplest form or term, which most Christians do not believe because it is no where a doctrine of God handed down to man. However, the point was a) most Christians do not believe this and 2) neither have bearing on one’s salvation, but show a lack of understanding of Scripture in my opinion. Nice try.
 
Jesus never said that
Matthew 11:
12 "And from the days of **John the Baptist **until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.
 
Matthew 11:
12 "And from the days of **John the Baptist **until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.
The dangers of literalism. Jesus is speaking figuratively. He does that form time to time.
 
I think this is not a useful argument.

I could also say, “Why are the ‘brethren of the Lord’ never referred to as the ‘sons of Mary’?”
Originally Posted by dianaiad View Post
Why is Jesus never referred to as Mary’s only Son, when He IS referred to as the Only Begotten Son of His Father?.
I hope you are prepared to answer the following Scriptures: Matt 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31,
Matt 13:55 (“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then {did} this man {get} all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him.”) --Remember, this took place where he grew up as we are reminded in the next verse; so you claim to know more than those that grew up with Jesus in Nazareth?

Others continued: ***"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. Now the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” For even His brothers did not believe in Him. Then Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.“When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee.” ***-- John 7:1-10
Are you going to say you know more than Jesus Himself did? Remember He is still in His hometown in Galilee to which Nazareth is a town in Galilee in case you did not know.

Continued: Acts 1:14, Galatians 1 (“Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”)

Do you know more than the Apostle Paul or God or Jesus or the people in His small town of Nazareth?

Like I said before and now say again; most Christians know that Mary and Joseph had other children from a clear understanding of the Biblical record and for those of you that hold onto this perpetual virginity theory have to overcome a lot of Scripture, which is what I said before that it shows a lack of comprehension of the Bible in my opinion, but thank God it has no bearing on Salvation.
 
I see no denial of the incarnation, just a different understanding of Mary.

[SIGN]Originally Posted by Araninski
your son is your brother/sister in Christ believe it or not, you only gave birth to his/her human nature.The same happen with Christ, with the difference The Son of God was not “born”, He already was because He is God. What was born was His human nature, you cannot give birth to Something that already was, only to something that wasn’t.[/SIGN]
That is just it, Doki. This “different understanding of Mary” is one of the earliest heresies the Church had to battle.

The Apostles taught that mothers do not give birth to a “nature” but to a person. Jesus is a Person, with two natures. They are inseparable in the Person of Christ.

The son of God was indeed, born. This is the teaching of the Apostles. Mary did, in fact, give birth to someone that already was. The eternal Word that was from the beginning took human form through Mary, and entered time to bring us salvation. What Araninski has posted is a denial of this incarnation.
 
Given the patriarchal nature of the society, that doesn’t surprise me at all…notice that when you look at the genealogies of Christ, neither one of them go through MARY, but through JOSEPH…and he didn’t have anything to do with Jesus’ birth!
You are mistaken about the genealogies; one goes through Mary and one through Joseph; go back and look very closely and this will be of some help to get started, but to really get into it will take great and painstaking look into the OT.
 
What Araninski has posted is a denial of this incarnation.
We disagree. Let’s let Araninski anwer so that WE don’t put words on anothers mouth. For us to do so is to assume. You know what they say about ‘assume’?
 
Not if John the Baptist pre-existed as Elijah as Jesus said.
Wow, Dokimas. You’re willing to allow 2 pre-existing souls other than God yet deny Catholics the right to venerate Mary?

And whose ovum was used for John?***

Some people’s concept of Mary is so distorted that they are willing to accept all sorts of extraneous ideas in order to deny Mary her rightful stature. They love Scripture, yet their disgust towards Mary is so great that they would rather disobey Scripture than give the Blessed Mother any kind of respect. That is, even though Scripture states, “All ages to come shall call me blessed!” they refuse to call Mary blessed. Their own anti-Catholicism supercedes their love of Scripture. (Now, I don’t know if this applies to you, Doki. I’m just sayin’, in general.)
 
This is another example of you distracting from the point. In and of themselves, they are not related, but in the Maryology it is linked closely. It just means she was supernaturally preserved from the stain of original sin in it simplest form or term, which most Christians do not believe because it is no where a doctrine of God handed down to man. However, the point was a) most Christians do not believe this and 2) neither have bearing on one’s salvation, but show a lack of understanding of Scripture in my opinion. Nice try.
First of all, did you have to look up what the Immaculate Conception was to discuss this, Pat? I ask you to answer honestly and with integrity as a Christian.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in having tributary conversations on the CAFs; they mimic real life dialogues which often diverge into more interesting discussions. 🤷

Thirdly, all Christians believed in the IC until the Reformation.

Justin Martyr

“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

“The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree *. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].*
 
cont’d:
Pseudo-Melito

“If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300]).

Ephraim the Syrian

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to” (The Virgins 2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater [to teach by example] than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue. When did she pain her parents even by a look? When did she disagree with her neighbors? When did she despise the lowly? When did she avoid the needy?” (ibid., 2:2:7).

“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).

Augustine

“Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both” (Christian Combat 22:24 [A.D. 396]).

“That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head” (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]).



“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Timothy of Jerusalem

“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian

“[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’” (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).

“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (ibid.).

Gregory of Tours

“The course of this life having been completed by blessed Mary, when now she would be called from the world, all the apostles came together from their various regions to her house. And when they had heard that she was about to be taken from the world, they kept watch together with her. And behold, the Lord Jesus came with his angels, and, taking her soul, he gave it over to the angel Michael and withdrew. At daybreak, however, the apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb, and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; the holy body having been received, he commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise, where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary’s body] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones and is in the enjoyment of the good of an eternity that will never end” (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 584]).

“But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore him, has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amid the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her” (ibid., 1:8). Source
 
I’m sure you’ve never thought that you explanation here may be limiting God.
No, I never have. I am thoroughly convinced that no explanation I can give, or fail to give, will in any way limit the God of the universe. 😃

God chose to limit Himself, by emptying Himself, and taking upon Himself human form, being born of a woman. He limited Himself with us in our humanity by his death on the cross. He suffered, died, and was buried. He made Himself a little lower than the angels, who do not suffer death.
We seem to agree that there was a time that God the Son did not have flesh and God use Mary as the vessel for the incarnation when God the Son entered Human Flesh.
Yes, we do. However, Catholics have received the Apostolic Teaching that Mary was not just a “vessel”,but a mother. She conceived Him in her womb, with her seed, bore Him, and nurtured Him as her only son. He was flesh of her flesh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top