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

[Rightlydivide]

Thats what I do not get Jim. If I do not hold any of the Marian dogmas BUT I have the exact same views about Jesus as you do…
It sounds like, and maybe I am wrong, Catholics believe something more about Jesus than we do because of Mary but I do not see it.
Do you have any thoughts on that?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

We do not believe anything more “about” Him than you do as far as facts and figures go. Jesus gave us His Mother. We pray to Mary because Jesus Himself gave her to His disciples, that is, us. God was the first one to praise her by the way. For us, Mary brings us closer to Him. We can only know so much “about” Him but each one of us can get to know Him better individually. For us, Marian prayers are centered on Christ whether or not we say His name. Most of our prayers to Mary (if not all) do have his name invoked. You might try this and see what you yourself find. God’s own angel praises Mary. No reason why we should not do this.

 

[onenow1]

Hi Rightly
And the high priest said to Him, " I adjure thee by the livimg God that thou tell us whether thou art the Son of God." Jesus said to Him, Thou has said it." Matt 26:63

Rightly, if you could create your mother, wouldn’t she be perfect ?

God Bless All

 

[Rightlydivide]

Its a touchy topic. I get that.
No. I think that having a mother who never sinned would be very very odd and out of the norm. So…no…actually not. Her being a sinner would not change him in any way anymore than her parents being sinners would have changed her or detracted from her IF she were sinless. But I am smart enough to tred carefully around these kind of questions.

 

[Rightlydivide]

We do not believe anything more “about” Him than you do as far as facts and figures go. Jesus gave us His Mother. We pray to Mary because Jesus Himself gave her to His disciples, that is, us. God was the first one to praise her by the way. For us, Mary brings us closer to Him. We can only know so much “about” Him but each one of us can get to know Him better individually. For us, Marian prayers are centered on Christ whether or not we say His name. Most of our prayers to Mary (if not all) do have his name invoked. You might try this and see what you yourself find. God’s own angel praises Mary. No reason why we should not do this.

I understand. Based upon only my observations, different groups do not show fruits or act different based upon praying to Mary. In other words, the benefits are not observable based upon my observations. Does it effect them in a way I cannot see? Of course it could but I would not know.

I am not saying you should not. Good Catholics should do what their church tells them to do. I respect that.

 

[Radical]

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

we could do this with a number of things involving Christ. For example:

Jesus = God

AND
God = someone who knows everything

THEREFORE
Jesus = someone who knows everything

…but that isn’t what scripture says. Or:

Jesus = God

AND
God = someone who can not be killed

THEREFORE
Jesus = someone who can not be killed

…but that isn’t what scripture says. How useful is logic in describing the manner in which Jesus is God?

“Mary is the Mother of God” is a simple slogan that doesn’t begin to describe the reality of the incarnation. The terms are open to various interpretations and it could be seen to imply things that aren’t true. The full details of the incarnation haven’t been revealed and may be beyond our ability to grasp. Our words may be simply inadequate. Further, the slogan carries a lot of baggage. Allegiance to the slogan shouldn’t be required (IMHO)…

 

[onenow1]

Its a touchy topic. I get that.
No. I think that having a mother who never sinned would be very very odd and out of the norm. So…no…actually not. Her being a sinner would not change him in any way anymore than her parents being sinners would have changed her or detracted from her IF she were sinless. But I am smart enough to tred carefully around these kind of questions.

But that is exactly how He created Adam and Eve; the norm before the fall. For God so loved the World . 1 Tim 2: 5-6.

I do believe perfection is the goal Rightly as the gospel says be perfect as your Father in heaven is Perfect.(Matt. 5:43-48).

Certainly a sinful Adam and Eve made a difference with Cain ?

Peace

 

[YADA]

Thats what I do not get Jim. If I do not hold any of the Marian dogmas BUT I have the exact same views about Jesus as you do…
It sounds like, and maybe I am wrong, Catholics believe something more about Jesus than we do because of Mary but I do not see it.
Do you have any thoughts on that?

Perhaps you should reflect upon why you do still hold to the same beliefs regarding the Natures of Christ [Human & Divine] and the Trinity … I can name a few …

For starters:

• All of the original protestant reformers [Luther, Calvin and Zwngli] held the same belief regarding Mary - that her role as the Theotokos pointed to the realities and truths of who Jesus is and the unity of the Godhead …

And that shared belief is tenuous - as illustrated by

• Since many Christians have begun to tear down the role of the Blessed Mother - various Crhistians have also started to deny the Truths of authentic Christian faith and belief … which can be illustrated by sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormans, etc … and by individuals like Spong who could write a book tat puts forth the theory that Jesus’ conception was the reesult of a rape - probably by a Roman soldier …
• And many Christians who believe that Jesus was not God but merely a prophet or a holy man in the same way that Ghandi was a holy man …
• And this diversity of belief continues to expand and grow … daily

It is very likely that your faith is still grounded in the controversies settled in the first centuries of the early Church - who struggled to understand what One God was in light of the person of Jesus … those same councils examined the personhood and dicinity of Christ and in so doing came to understand who Jesus was through His relation with mother, disciples, etc … and they declared that Mary was the Theotokos …

 

[Rightlydivide]

Perhaps you should reflect upon why you do still hold to the same beliefs regarding the Natures of Christ [Human & Divine] and the Trinity … I can name a few …

For starters:

• All of the original protestant reformers [Luther, Calvin and Zwngli] held the same belief regarding Mary - that her role as the Theotokos pointed to the realities and truths of who Jesus is and the unity of the Godhead …

And that shared belief is tenuous - as illustrated by

• Since many Christians have begun to tear down the role of the Blessed Mother - various Crhistians have also started to deny the Truths of authentic Christian faith and belief … whuch can be illustrated by sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormans, etc … and by individuals like Spong who could write a book tat puts forth the theory that Jesus’ conception was the reesult of a rape - probably by a Roman soldier …
• And many Christians who believe that Jesus was not God but merely a prophet or a holy man in the same way that Ghandi was a holy man …

It is very likely that your faith is still grounded in the controversies settled in the first centuries of the early Church - who struggled to understand what One God was in light of the person of Jesus … those same councils examined the personhood and dicinity of Christ and in so doing came to understand who Jesus was through His relation with mother, disciples, etc … and they declared that Mary was the Theotokos …

Consider that my faith is based upon a careful exegetical analysis of the Bible that resulted in certain beliefs being the same and others being different. While that is not likely to convince you, that is what the theology books I have read are based on. Take Erickson, Towns, or DA Carson (for a book by book analysis) for example.
Heretical views have a 2000 year history. I am not convinced they are percentage wise anymore or less prevalent today.

 

[MartinJordan]

I think people have a special difficulty in accepting Mary who does not, or never did sin. But when angel Gabriel said “full of grace” and “most highly favored” and “the Lord is with you” there (imo) should be no doubts of Mary’s importance and holiness and sinlessness.

And here’s my look of it : God chose her among all women to carry His Son, bloodline and all (House of David) but particularly not carrying any of the sin. David sinned we all know that. But if it’s going to be God’s Son, there should be no sin in the bloodline so that’s where Mary sinlessness should come into focus. Especially when Mary said “My soul Glorifies the Lord, my Spirit rejoices in God my Savior…all nations shall call me Blessed…” It’s clear to me that Mary was made sinless when her mother conceived ie before she could sin that’s why she says “In God my Savior”.

So, I’d like to also emphasize House of David. The OT does promote that the Messiah (of God) will come from David’s line. So when Elizabeth said “the Mother of My Lord” (guided by the Holy Spirit- which is integral part the proclamation) she knew Exactly who Mary was, yes the Mother of God. Elizabeth although in higher standing than Mary, gave the “qualification” to Mary as she carries the Son of the Most High.

MJ

 

[Rightlydivide]

But that is exactly how He created Adam and Eve; the norm before the fall. For God so loved the World . 1 Tim 2: 5-6.

I do believe perfection is the goal Rightly as the gospel says be perfect as your Father in heaven is Perfect.(Matt. 5:43-48).

Certainly a sinful Adam and Eve made a difference with Cain ?

Peace

Yes they did but Cain and Christ have some substantial differences onenow1 and it is not based upon what their human parents did. It is very very close to being a good point but I think it misses the mark slightly…but with substantial implications.
What Mary was in regards to sin could not have effected (I get effected and affected mixed up, hope that is right) Jesus. In fact, I believe that is why Catholics believe the immaculate conception was “fitting” and not required. Could be wrong about that but it seems I am accurately reflecting Catholic doctrine in that one matter.
Yes, perfection is the goal. I certainly agree with that.

 

[JimG]

Thats what I do not get Jim. If I do not hold any of the Marian dogmas BUT I have the exact same views about Jesus as you do…
It sounds like, and maybe I am wrong, Catholics believe something more about Jesus than we do because of Mary but I do not see it.
Do you have any thoughts on that?

Well, as I indicated before, I think the initial impetus for the dogma of Theotokos was that some were questioning the divinity of Jesus. Some early heretics viewed him as merely human, or as somewhat less than the Father, (and others viewed his humanity is merely an illusion.) It was important to state that the person whom Mary bore was in fact God.

That sort of gets into the fact that the one divine nature cannot be “shared” but only possessed in its entirety, by each Person of the Trinity.

I would be more specific, but it’s late, and I’m too lazy to go look up the history of it.

 

[YADA]

Consider that my faith is based upon a careful exegetical analysis of the Bible that resulted in certain beliefs being the same and others being different. While that is not likely to convince you, that is what the theology books I have read are based on. Take Erickson, Towns, or DA Carson (for a book by book analysis) for example.
Heretical views have a 2000 year history. I am not convinced they are percentage wise anymore or less prevalent today.

Well you can believe that but the ‘numbers’ and diversity of sects all claiming to be ‘Christian’ would tell a different story -

I do agree that the basis at the foundation of the heretical beliefs of today are rooted in the heresies of the past … so too are those authentic Truths rooted in those who first wrestled with the questions of who is Jesus, man only, God only or both? Who stood up to those who denied the hhumanity and/or divinity of Jesus … all of your theology books build upon or take exception with those who came before on every side of the issue - the good and the bad …

Your ability to perform biblical exegisis is also dependent upon those wrote, compiled, copied, translated and preserved the scriptures through the ages for you …

In fact the deposit of faith is a gift to us from those who walked with Jesus, who loed and followed His Commission to preach the Gospel through the ages and to all corners of the world -

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well, as I indicated before, I think the initial impetus for the dogma of Theotokos was that some were questioning the divinity of Jesus. Some early heretics viewed him as merely human, or as somewhat less than the Father, (and others viewed his humanity is merely an illusion.) It was important to state that the person whom Mary bore was in fact God.

That sort of gets into the fact that the one divine nature cannot be “shared” but only possessed in its entirety, by each Person of the Trinity.

I would be more specific, but it’s late, and I’m too lazy to go look up the history of it.

I admit the exact history of it could have made that particular approach meaningful Jim. It does not seem to now however. However perhaps it does in some corners? People keep bringing up the JW’s. Thats a poor example. Mary giving birth to God is irrelevent to people who think his previous incarnation was an archangel. When your theology is that backed up, arguing about Mary is besides the point. Just a side note thrown in for free…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well you can believe that but the ‘numbers’ and diversity of sects all claiming to be ‘Christian’ would tell a different story -

I do agree that the basis at the foundation of the heretical beliefs of today are rooted in the heresies of the past … so too are those authentic Truths rooted in those who first wrestled with the questions of who is Jesus, man only, God only or both? Who stood up to those who denied the hhumanity and/or divinity of Jesus … all of your theology books build upon or take exception with those who came before [on every side of the issue - the good and the bad …

Your ability to perform biblical exegisis is also dependent upon those wrote, compiled, copied, translated and preserved the scriptures through the ages for you …

In fact the deposit of faith is a gift to us from those who walked with Jesus, who loed and followed His Commission to preach the Gospel through the ages and to all corners of the world -

Lets remember, Any groups ability or inability to have orthodox theology or perform exegesis does not reflect on those who do it correctly. Its a rather interesting approach to take if you believe it does.
What it means when carried to its logical extreme is that any disagreement with any approach, whether that also be scripture and tradition would invalidate the correct efforts of the other group.
For example, if the Catholic Church relies on the three legged stool of scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (understanding this looks different for another group), and another group claims the same underlying approach, you would not say these differences undermine your approach.
So why is my approach different? It should not be. False beliefs do not invalidate Truth. They by definition cannot or there is no Truth.

Your comment about translation or copying is rather interesting in light of the fact that the Orthodox adhere to the majority text, which we use, for the New Testament and Catholicism adheres to the critical text, which we do not use. But lets not go that route right now.
As far as the Deposit of Faith, um…would that be Augustine or Aquinas? Rhetorical question.
As far as the actual percentages, I would for example have you list all the groups considered heretical that irenaeus did. I consider the differences between the vast majority of the groups today to be less than what Gnosticism presented the first two centuries. But I do not have an accurate census and neither does anyone else
[/quote]

 

[JimG]

I admit the exact history of it could have made that particular approach meaningful Jim. It does not seem to now however. However perhaps it does in some corners? People keep bringing up the JW’s. Thats a poor example. Mary giving birth to God is irrelevent to people who think his previous incarnation was an archangel. When your theology is that backed up, arguing about Mary is besides the point. Just a side note thrown in for free…

Yes, I agree that the JW’s are irrelevant here.

But Mary giving birth to God is just a startling way of stating a fundamental truth of Christianity–that Jesus who was born of Mary IS God. Perhaps the term Theotokos would be more acceptable, but not make the point in as clear a manner.

 

[Rightlydivide]

When Mary as the Mother of God controversy broke out it caused a rift with the Nestorians right? Well, did it even matter in the long run because the Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East) and the Catholics are buddy buddy now due to recent ecumenical declarations and so forth.
In other words, the very people it was supposed to shape up have better relations with you than we do.

 

[onenow1]

Yes they did but Cain and Christ have some substantial differences onenow1 and it is not based upon what their human parents did. It is very very close to being a good point but I think it misses the mark slightly…but with substantial implications.
.

Indeed ! it is based on what God wants ! Hence the necessity, for a pure vessel, the ground Moses stood on was Holy ground, in light of Moses experiences wouldn’t you say that, Mary comes closer to God ? ." The Angel says;" the Holy Spirit will come upon you ,and the power of the most High will overshadow you." Luke 1: 34-35

As the Ark was made to God’s specks, surly Jesus mother was made more perfectly. “With God nothing is impossible.” Luke 1: 37

Peace

“Where one Person of the Trinity is there, the other two will be.”

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Radical: Ok, first of all. “Mother of God” is NOT a slogan. There is nothing being advertised. Second, It is right there in the Bible; it is just a little more implicit than most Catholics take for granted.

Rightly: There are a million books, articles, tracts (on this very website I believe, under the “faith” icon at the top), on this subject that maybe have a better explanation than those here. I have read a lot about Mary as “Mother of God” (among other aspects). It all makes sense, logically and biblically. I have explained it to many, though in person, and it made sense to most, except to those who did not want to believe it. (I strongly dislike typing and am really bad at it; I would much rather write or talk; weird pet peeve.) They gave 0 arguments of why they did not believe it; they just think it a form of idolatry or blasphemy. Seems more of a bias thing especially in they only insult. I know this is not your case and thanks for that, but maybe a book or tract can clear up some unknown confusions/misunderstandings.

 

[guanophore]

My view:

Mary is the mother of Jesus human nature. Yes human nature, when people have a son they only make the body(this case the Holy Spirit and Mary),

This is the exact heresy that was popular at the time, and the reason for which the title Theotokos was given to her. Like all the Marian doctrines, it was defined because of Christ, to clarify the Teaching of the Apostles concerning Him.

When you read the history of the early heresies, you will see that this point was, indeed, argued vigorously. In the end, the Church proclaimed the teaching of the Apostles that Jesus is fully God, and fully man, two natures in one Person.

I am not sure why you think the soul of a person is not also part of their personhood, but when a person is born, they are body, soul, and spirit. We do not know at which point the soul and spirit are joined with the body, but to be on the safe side, we consider that life begins at the moment of conception. Human life is comprised of all these elements. A mother gives birth to a person, body, soul, and spirit - not a “nature”. Indeed, Jesus human nature did come from Mary, whereas His divine nature He possessed forever. In Him, these two natures were joined in one Person.

I agree with you that it is a great mystery, and one quite beyond the feeble comprehension of our limited human minds. However, we do know certain things by revelation, and that Mary is the Mother of God is one of those revelations.

 Also remember Jesus gave up His God status when He came to Earth.

I am not sure what this means to you. Do you think that Jesus did not have a divine nature?

, Mary was His mother in His lifetime as a human because He already was, “before Abraham I was”. So Mary is the mother of Jesus human nature.

God bless.

Mary is the mother of Jesus, His person. That means, she is the mother of the Son of God, who emptied Himself, and became flesh, and dwelt among us. To deny this is to deny the incarnation, which is why the term was chosen.