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

[JimG]

When thinking of the Incarnation, it helps to remember that God does not exist on a timeline.

From a human standpoint, we think of it this way: creation, long time lapse, Adam & Eve, another long time lapse, then Incarnation and Jesus is born.

But God doesn’t see it that way. Every instant of our time is present immediately to God as “now.” He doesn’t “wait” for time to pass before sending the Word. To him it is all now. John captures this pretty well in his prologue:
In the beginning was the Word
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God.

For God, there was no time lapse between creation and incarnation. From a human standpoint, there was.

In his human nature, Jesus was born at a point in time, but in his person he was eternally the Divine Word.

Mothers give birth to persons. That’s why they name them.

 

[Pat_De]

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 -->

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!

Jesus is God in human flesh, which is why He, Jesus in human flesh, sits at the right hand of God and cannot be at Masses in human form, but in spirit He is everywhere at all times, which could include the Mass.

God is what according to Jesus and to Scripture? Spirit. Mary cannot give birth to Spirit that is eternal for eternal means the absence of time and always existed; however Jesus, God in human flesh came into our time-space box through the normal means that all humans are born, the birth canal. Mary gave birth to the human Jesus, which is God incarnate in the flesh. God has no Mother with a capital “M” and many with a small “m”, but Jesus had an earthly “mother” who have birth to Him as God incarnate in human flesh.

If you believe God is omnipresent, then He was present before, during and after His birth. Just not with the human form because remember, God is spirit and Jesus was both fully human and fully God; if you don’t have the mental capacity to separate the carnal from the spiritual, then you will have many problems with understanding of Scripture because all the writers regularly make these distinctions as teaching tools using idioms, metaphors and other figurative language, such as the “Bread of Life” sermon as an example.

What was Jesus answer when He was told His mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak with Him; He looked at His disciples and said what? So in the way you, as a Catholic, would have look at it, then Jesus had many “Mothers of God”. Why because what He said when His “mother” asked for Him and the response He gave before the crowd.

 

[Radical]

When thinking of the Incarnation, it helps to remember that God does not exist on a timeline. Incarnation and Jesus is born.

But God doesn’t see it that way. Every instant of our time is present immediately to God as “now.” He doesn’t “wait” for time to pass before sending the Word. To him it is all now.

This seems to be a rather popular claim…How do you know that to “him it is all now”? If he is outside of time, how can you use a word that addresses time such as “now”? Why is it more legitimate to say that to “him it is all now” rather than to “him it is all future” or to “him it is all past”? Why is “now” the proper time reference with respect to an existence outside of time?

 

[awatkins69]

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)…

First of all, Jesus did know everything. Secondly, Jesus was killed, but His Divine Nature wasn’t. You need to understand basic Christian theology first. MormonHero, although saying it kind of jokingly, actually gives a good explanation.

 

[PRmerger]

. Jesus was never born, He already was, what was born was His body, his flesh. Mary the mother Jesus humanity, Jesus Human nature.

When we mothers give birth to our children, we do not say, “Congratulate me, folks! I just gave birth to a human nature! The babe I just carried in my womb for 9 months has an immortal soul, given to her by God, but I just gave birth to the fleshy part!”

That would be an absurd way to look at it, eh?

We say we gave birth to a person, who has a body and soul. In this we are not claiming to have given our baby her immortal soul.

Similarly, when we say Mary is the mother of God we are not making any claims that Mary gave Her Son His Divine Nature.

Jesus is Mary’s big brother

You needn’t look at it too literally nor mix the metaphors.

God has claimed us as His children. Yet we are also the Bride in the New Covenant. So, if you’re going to be consistently literal, you’re going to have to say that the Bible says that God married His children.

OR!

You can look at it the Catholic way and say that all of these metaphors are words which are inadequate to describe the relationship God has with His creation. We are children; we are His Beloved; we are orphans; we are harlots; we are branches; we are sheep; we are guests at the Wedding Banquet…

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

When we mothers give birth to our children, we do not say, “Congratulate me, folks! I just gave birth to a human nature! The babe I just carried in my womb for 9 months has an immortal soul, given to her by God, but I just gave birth to the fleshy part!”

That would be an absurd way to look at it, eh?

We say we gave birth to a person, who has a body and soul. In this we are not claiming to have given our baby her immortal soul.

Similarly, when we say Mary is the mother of God we are not making any claims that Mary gave Her Son His Divine Nature.

It looks absurd but that is the reality of our secular society, the society doesn’t give any credit to God (In first place we have them because of Him:shrug: ), remember children are a gift of God, we received them. The same goes for us, our children are not really ours they are of God. I recognize it, and I am better off that way because without the Perfect Dad all of us “parents” would just be a mess.

You needn’t look at it too literally nor mix the metaphors.

Originally Posted by PRmerger

You needn’t look at it too literally nor mix the metaphors.

God has claimed us as His children. Yet we are also the Bride in the New Covenant. So, if you’re going to be consistently literal, you’re going to have to say that the Bible says that God married His children.

OR!

You can look at it the Catholic way and say that all of these metaphors are words which are inadequate to describe the relationship God has with His creation. We are children; we are His Beloved; we are orphans; we are harlots; we are branches; we are sheep; we are guests at the Wedding Banquet…

The Son of God married the God the Father’s children, so what? In the start it was like that. If God predestined this way, it means that there’s nothing wrong with it.

BTW our souls do give birth at the moment we are conceived, we are all already planned since before the creation of the world but we weren’t made yet, so we do give birth completely in someway, but Jesus always was, in His soul and spirit.

Blessings of our Awesome God!

 

[JimG]

This seems to be a rather popular claim…How do you know that to “him it is all now”? If he is outside of time, how can you use a word that addresses time such as “now”? Why is it more legitimate to say that to “him it is all now” rather than to “him it is all future” or to “him it is all past”? Why is “now” the proper time reference with respect to an existence outside of time?

To be more accurate, the term for God’s existence is “eternal.” But eternal doesn’t mean an infinite progression of moments. Human beings exist in time, and we possess our being as a succession of moments, never being in full possession of our being as a totality (until we get to heaven.) But God is unchanging and immutable. He has no extension in space or time, and possesses his being as a unity and totality, not a temporal series.

 

[PRmerger]

It looks absurd but that is the reality of our secular society, the society doesn’t give any credit to God (In first place we have them because of Him:shrug: ), remember children are a gift of God, we received them. The same goes for us, our children are not really ours they are of God. I recognize it, and I am better off that way because without the Perfect Dad all of us “parents” would just be a mess.

True statements, all. But non-sequitors.

Doesn’t change the fact that we mothers give birth to human persons, not human natures.

And to say that Mary did not give birth to a human person who was God but a human nature is ludicrous.

The Son of God married the God the Father’s children, so what? In the start it was like that. If God predestined this way, it means that there’s nothing wrong with it.

Exactly! And if God predestined Mary to be the Mother of God, it means there’s nothing wrong with it.

BTW our souls do give birth at the moment we are conceived, we are all already planned since before the creation of the world but we weren’t made yet, so we do give birth completely in someway, but Jesus always was, in His soul and spirit
Blessings of our Awesome God!

That’s very Catholic of you to say that!

 

[Pat_De]

True statements, all. But non-sequitors.

Doesn’t change the fact that we mothers give birth to human persons, not human natures.

And to say that Mary did not give birth to a human person who was God but a human nature is ludicrous.

Exactly! And if God predestined Mary to be the Mother of God, it means there’s nothing wrong with it.

That’s very Catholic of you to say that!

---

“In sin did my mother conceive me” *** Can a mother give birth to anything but a sinner? What is the nature of man? Sinner Therefore, all mothers give birth to babies with a sin nature and the nature of the person is why the only free will a person ever has is in direct correlation with their nature. Unless something supernatural occurs where God intervenes and gives a person a new nature that seeks after God. Left to himself and his nature, not one person would ever seek after God. This is exactly the message Scripture teaches those who believe and are able to understand the Scripture. MAry gave birth to a human being in Jesus who had a sinless nature; a supernatural and one time occurrence, but that in no way make her the “Mother of God”, but it does make her the mother of Jesus, a human with the nature of God because He is God in human flesh.

If you look at my explanation a page or so before this post (post #82); you will see that if she is the “Mother of God”, then by Jesus own words, he has many “Mothers of God” by the standards used in the Catholic context.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Christ is not begotten of the Virgin Mary. we profess that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and BORN of the Virgin Mary

in the Nicene Creed it is further professed that Jesus was “beggotten, not made” of the Father. but through the Virgin Mary He was MADE man

My apologies. “Begotten” refers to the father’s half of doing things. Hence, yes, God the Father begot God the Son eternally. I was wrong to use that word. I suppose I just meant “was the child of”.

 

[PRmerger]

---

“In sin did my mother conceive me” *** Can a mother give birth to anything but a sinner? What is the nature of man? Sinner Therefore, all mothers give birth to babies with a sin nature and the nature of the person is why the only free will a person ever has is in direct correlation with their nature. Unless something supernatural occurs where God intervenes and gives a person a new nature that seeks after God. Left to himself and his nature, not one person would ever seek after God. This is exactly the message Scripture teaches those who believe and are able to understand the Scripture.

What you have written above is exactly why the CC baptizes infants! (Your explanation above has to be understood with some nuance, of course, but it is, essentially an excellent apologia for the Baptism of infants. )

MAry gave birth to a human being in Jesus who had a sinless nature; a supernatural and one time occurrence, but that in no way make her the “Mother of God”, but it does make her the mother of Jesus, a human with the nature of God because He is God in human flesh.

If you are going to be consistent, then you’re going to have to say that your mother gave birth to a sinful human nature, not a human being named “Pat”. :whacky::whacky::whacky::whacky:

If you look at my explanation a page or so before this post (post #82); you will see that if she is the “Mother of God”, then by Jesus own words, he has many “Mothers of God” by the standards used in the Catholic context.

This Jesus of your seems really disrespectful to his mama, eh?

That’s not the Jesus of Scripture, not the Jesus of the CC, and not the Jesus of the Jewish culture, which revered and venerated their mothers.

The Jesus you have created is a man-made, extra-Biblical Jesus who has some sort of weird hatred for his mother. I don’t get it.

 

[onenow1]

Jesus is God in human flesh, which is why He, Jesus in human flesh, sits at the right hand of God and cannot be at Masses in human form, but in spirit He is everywhere at all times, which could include the Mass. .

Here’s the problem as I see it Pat, denial of the power of God, to accomplish all things.
I think,if you look carefully, in these forums, you will see this over and over again, this basic denial,as a result; I thinkyou are thinking like man and not like God. This is what Jesus said to Peter.

God Bless All

 

[GaryTaylor]

You know what Pat, I understand the confusion your having. And the way you thinking is exacly how I thought in Catholic School as a kid. Then it was explained to me like this

GOD not Jesus but GOD decided he wanted to correct the error of Sin on earth. So he thought about it, how ever long he did, and came up with the idea.

I {GOD} am gonna go back to Earth as me but in the Flesh [he was gonna die for mans Sins as a human]…Thus we now arrive at the Son of God,Jesus.

He picked Mary out of EVERYONE to be the Mother and she was IMMACULTATE.

So Jesus is born in the Immaculate Conception. Now Jesus is not only man but God. And now you have GOD still in Heaven

{so god splits himself for lack of better words though the seed of conception through Mary}

Jesus dies for all mans Sin a Terrible Suffering on the Cross.

The Third day he is resurrected with his" Father" now Christ is God and Son at this point.

GOD still GOD, and thus we have the Trinity because the Spirit of God, The Holy Ghost is in both God and Jesus at this point.

Jesus and the Tranfiguration of the Holy Spirit is another issue.

Does that help at all? Probly not right.

 

[dianaiad]

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 -->

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!

So why are you assuming that all non-Catholics think this?

 

[PRmerger]

So why are you assuming that all non-Catholics think this?

I think many don’t know what the LDS position is on Mary as* theotokos*.

 

[benidict]

This subject is indeed a mystery and we as God’s sons, we try to understand His mysteries. So we must take this subject seriously and with all the due respect. Everyone has his/her way of viewing it, if someone has it wrong, that person doesn’t have it wrong because he/she wants, that person is only trying to understand, some people are unable to digest a mystery and are better off thinking that because they leave the subject plain and simple to avoid confusion, others however try to understand it, and this sometimes, leads to a better spiritual growth.

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), God is the One who gives the life to this person(Job 33:4). Jesus is God and He was before Mary and anyone else.

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Without Jesus, Mary couldn’t have been made. Also remember Jesus gave up His God status when He came to Earth.

Philippians 2:6-8
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death–even death on a cross!

Jesus was tempted and this temptations were hard for Him to overcome, He suffered them, and never sinned. He was tempted in every way (Heb 4:15) , and yet He didn’t sin. It was hard for Him but He made it through, because He had faith in the One who sent him. Jesus lived a human life here, 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.

he gave up his God status? really? lets see. who do you seek. they said Jesus of nazareth. he said I AM, and they fell back from him. hmmm. doubting thomas, my LORD AND MY GOD. yep still kept his “God” status. also if you say that Mary was only mother of His human nature, then where was his God nature while he was growing from an embryo. im being serious here. you cannot seperate Jesus human nature from his deity. it doesnt work. these were some of the first heresies defeated in the time of the apostles. the nicolations come to mind. HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD. PRAY FOR US SINNERS NOW, AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH. how appropriate. Peace to you and yours.

 

[benidict]

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.

even as a protestant you are invited to pray the rosary my friend. trust me, you would not be the only protestant to do so. if praying to Mary offends you, i could share with you a protestant version i came up with before i converted to Catholocism. yep. i was praying the rosary long before i became Catholic. Peace

 

[benidict]

So she isn’t a mother, she’s a container?
If God chose to come to us as a person like us (A man like us in all things but sin), why wouldn’t He have a mother instead of a ‘vessel of honor which gave Him human DNA’)

Unless, of course, you consider ALL of us mothers to be vessels of honor carrying our children to which we give human DNA, and that the definition of mother includes ‘vessels of honor’ etc. . .

vessel of honor would be a good thing to add to the litany of the blessed Mother i think. Peace

 

[Australis]

Was my body also used as a vessel for my own children? I always thought God regarded me much more highly than to simply use me as an incubator.

Your children are not the focus of this thread, God the Son is. As far as I know, he existed long before Mary did. I’m only trying to make sense of it all. I mean no offense to other mum’s out there!

 

[PRmerger]

Your children are **not the focus of this thread, God the Son is. ** As far as I know, he existed long before Mary did. I’m only trying to make sense of it all. I mean no offense to other mum’s out there!

I noted the bolded portion above (my emphasis) with much interest, as it parallels quite nicely with the topic of this thread: Mary is not the focus of the dogma of Theotokos. God the Son is.

When the Council of Ephesus declared Mary the Mother of God **it was less about her and more about an affirmation of the deity of Christ. **To say that Mary was the mother of God laid to rest any questions about whether Jesus was partially human, a human who was just close to God, a divine spirit, a spirit contained in a body, etc etc etc.

It said: when we say Mary is the mother of God we are saying Jesus is God.

Incidentally, I find it fascinating that this designation for the Blessed Mother has been around since the earliest days of Christianity. It has only been relatively recently (last few centuries) that the objection has arisen. That is, Mary has been known as the Mother of God in 643, in 987, in 1345, 1789 and 2010. Fascinating continuity!