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

[dianaiad]

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

I wasn’t speaking so much from the viewpoint as a Latter-day saint…it was a comment on the almost universal Christian (please note the ‘almost’) idea that Jesus is God. Even Mormons believe that one, y’know.

Since He is, then of course, since Mary is His mother, then she is the mother of God…by definition. The denotation of the word is undeniable.

It’s the connotation that people have problems with, I think…by describing Mary as the mother of God, there is this perception that she is the mother of the divine part of Him…not just the physical mortal body that He lived in, but the divine part–the “God” part. This, in a way, elevates her far above all mortal women (which is fine, actually…she should be!) but also in a way it elevates her above her Son.

The reaction, to non-Catholics, might be visceral, if not well understood.

As for me, I don’t have any problems at all with the denotation of the term…I do have problems with that connotation. Mary, who deserves all the praise we can heap on her, was still a mortal woman; she bore a mortal Son. That was, in fact, the whole point.

I think that the perceived opposition to the term we see from Protestants and other non-Catholic Christian folks is a rebellion against that perceived elevation of Mary from a mortal woman who gave birth to Jesus (Who is God…or at least the second Member of the Godhead) to the divine Mother of the whole of Who Jesus Is, that is, God incarnate.

I think both perceptions are faulty, but they are, nevertheless, there.

I think, anyway.

 

[MormonHero]

I think that the perceived opposition to the term we see from Protestants and other non-Catholic Christian folks is a rebellion against that perceived elevation of Mary from a mortal woman who gave birth to Jesus (Who is God…or at least the second Member of the Godhead) to the divine Mother of the whole of Who Jesus Is, that is, God incarnate.

What if we stick to the Greek theotokos, which literally means ‘bearer of God’?

 

[dianaiad]

What if we stick to the Greek theotokos, which literally means ‘bearer of God’?

I don’t have a problem with either term; Greek or English…except for the connotation. I addressed that in my earlier post.

The OP was, I think, wondering why Protestants and other non-Catholics have a problem with the term “mother of God…” and that’s what I was addressing; the ‘why.’

It’s that perceived connotation of Mary being the Mother (capital “M”) of the Divine that non-Catholics think that Catholics have. Whether that perception is correct or not, I think that’s the problem. She is Jesus’ mother, and Jesus is God…but (again, this is my opinion…) non-Catholics want to emphasize that she is the mother of His mortal, physical body, not His Divine nature AS God.

I could be wrong…but that’s my, probably flawed, opinion.

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by benidict

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.

Believe it or not Jesus is God, He being God, suffered, and was tempted, He felt pain in the Cross. He being God could have made Himself “immune” to the pain and the temptations, but instead He overcame pain and temptations like a real human **without **His God powers, to teach man His example, He lived like a real human, and never sinned because He had faith in the One who sent Him. Stop implying I said something else please.

His God nature as you said was in every moment since the time His body was conceived, but His God nature didn’t got conceived, this nature was before Mary, this is my position.

Secondly if Mary is the “Mother of God”, she is not the Mother of God, she was the Mother of God.

1 Peter 3:18
“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.”

“Oh Peter!, heresy! how can you separated Jesus into two natures!”

I am only saying you can’t refute my position as well as I can’t refute your position because it is impossible for the “Only One True Church” to be err in doctrine and morals.
I was Catholic, I believed like a Catholic, so I know how Catholics think.

God bless you my friend.

 

[PRmerger]

His God nature as you said was in every moment since the time His body was conceived, but His God nature didn’t got conceived, this nature was before Mary, this is my position.

Well, then that make you in accord with the Catholic Church, Araninski!

1 Peter 3:18
“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.”

This applies to all of humanity, does it not? Aren’t we all going to die in body but become alive by the Spirit?

I was Catholic, I believed like a Catholic, so I know how Catholics think.

God bless you my friend.

I don’t believe you know the Catholic Faith, Aran. I believe you were so poorly catechized that you can’t even answer a few basic catechetical questions.

Are you up for the challenge?

If you accept, you must give us your word of honor that you will only use your knowledge of “how Catholics think” and not use google or any other resources except your own catechesis as a Catholic.

 

[bibleloyal]

Hi there
This is what you said. The answer is clear to me:

Jesus = God
AND
Mary = Mother of Jesus

THEREFORE
Mary = Mother of God

The problem is your opening line:
“Jesus = God”
This is incorrect.

The Bible clearly says that Jesus had a beginning and was the “first creation” and “only begotten” Son of God. Therefore he had a ‘father’ that lived before him in heaven. Jesus is a god for sure but not the Almighty God. He is the SON of God.

You probably believe in the trinity and it claims that all three are one, co-eternal, and all identically the one and same thing. (Check your encyclopedia for the exact wording of it)

This is where the thing falls to pieces and this is why you cant understand it. Problem is the opening line, and then the rest of it does not make sense.

It should be:

Jesus = not God
AND
Mary = Mother of Jesus

THEREFORE
Mary = Mother of Jesus

Not wanting to be argumentative, but even the Pope himself said that the trinity is a mystery. Why would the Almighty God make a mystery of himself and the relationship with his Son. We are supposed to understand the Bible, and its not supposed to be confusing, and yet over hundreds or longer, people have been arguing this very issue.

The origin of the trinity was long before Jesus Christ ever arrived here on Earth.

Do a google search on origin of trinity and start reading. Its not a secret.

I am loyal to the Bible, and it does not use the word “trinity.”

Respectfully and I know that many will choose to disagree with me, but there is no Biblical support for it.

bibleloyal

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible clearly says that Jesus had a beginning and was the “first creation” and “only begotten” Son of God.

Where does the Bible clearly say that Jesus had a beginning?

 

[Pat_De]

Where does the Bible clearly say that Jesus had a beginning?

Jesus as a human had a beginning, but as God He has no beginning, which is why some people get confused.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. - Colossians 1:15

The word “image” is where we get the word “icon”, which is an exact duplicate, which Paul is merely stating here that Jesus is God in human form. If you want of photograph of God, then take a picture of Jesus - this would be a laymen’s way of looking at it. For the next verse leaves no doubt that He was not created in the context the other poster is implying or seems to be implying.

16 For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. – Colossians 1:16-18

Verses 17 and 18 addresses the “only begotten son” in proper context; the firstborn Jewish son always had “preeminence” of everything"; He has first place in everything. To prove this it says in Scripture He was the firstborn among the dead. Is that true? Was He the first raised from the dead? No, but He has the preeminence of being the firstborn from the dead through the resurrection.

So if the other poster is denying the deity of Jesus Christ, then He or she is a blasphemer and the love of God is not in them, but that is based on what looks like someone who believes Jesus was a created human who is not God

However, we can see from just a little Scripture that this is not true as I have shown above…

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God {did:} sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and {as an offering} for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, - Romans 8:3

Notice Jesus is the likeness of human flesh, the Holy Spirit was very careful on the exact choice of words because if He had said “sending His son in human flesh”, that would be blasphemy because it s implication is that Jesus would have had a sin nature, but a study of the word “likeness” will give good understanding as to why that word was chosen and for good reason.

 

[Araninski]

@PRMerger: You are just saying to all my answers: “You are accord to the Catholic Church.” Well apparently not because according to all Catholics here Mary is the “Mother of God” because she gave birth to the whole Jesus, including his Divine nature (which is His other part, His Divine nature is not His human nature, which already was but anyways she gave birth to it). I used to think like a Catholic, don’t believe me but its the truth. I was badly catechized(like almost every Catholic), but later on I really learned Catholic Beliefs while being Catholic, so yes I thought like a Catholic.

You just need to understand that Jesus was on His flesh when He was on Earth that’s it.

Hebrews 5:7
“In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence (devotion to God).”

God bless you!

 

[Nicea325]

@PRMerger: You are just saying to all my answers: “You are accord to the Catholic Church.” Well apparently not because according to all Catholics here Mary is the “Mother of God” because she gave birth to the whole Jesus, including his Divine nature (which is His other part, His Divine nature is not His human nature, which already was but anyways she gave birth to it). I used to think like a Catholic, don’t believe me but its the truth. I was badly catechized(like almost every Catholic), but later on I really learned Catholic Beliefs while being Catholic, so yes I thought like a Catholic.

You just need to understand that Jesus was on His flesh when He was on Earth that’s it.

Hebrews 5:7
“In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence (devotion to God).”

God bless you!

U-huh? You used to think like a Catholic? Did Jesus think like a Jew? You make no sense at all.

 

[Pat_De]

Where does the Bible clearly say that Jesus had a beginning?

Hi PR, I wanted to add a few other thoughts the HS put on my mind concerning the nature of God in relation to the poster. If you look at the great commission carefully, you will see it states in the Name (singular and key) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; this phrase in it construction shows the Trinitarian nature of God. That is but one passage, but it makes the point vividly.

If God is infinite, meaning He is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscience, then logically and philosophically there can only be one God because of if you had two “beings” that had all of those same attributes, then in essence they would be the same and as what? One.

You cannot have to infinite beings, but that one infinite being can reveal those attributes in any way He pleases and of course He does because we have one God revealed in what? Three persons; just as the Scriptures shows.

Furthermore the poster would have to be smarter than the Jews who actually interacted with Jesus because they tried to stone Him a couple of times for claiming to be God and one time because He said I and the Father are One; this is also says in John 17 among other places. To His disciples He said if you have seen Me you have seen the Father; same principal. Then if you move into revelation and all the Alpha and Omega.

As I said the one who says there is more than one infinite god or that Jesus is a separate God or not God is bound in their sin at this point in their life and all of heaven is in agreement because the authority is Scripture which came down from heaven and we are only repeating what heaven has already affirmed, just as Scripture teaches in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18.

So hope this helps with Bible Loyal (NOT).

 

[rwillenborg]

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

I’m not. But to list every denomination who DOES think this way wouldn’t fit in the line of the title.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not. But to list every denomination who DOES think this way wouldn’t fit in the line of the title.

Oh.

Well.

Good point.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus as a human had a beginning, but as God He has no beginning, which is why some people get confused.

Indeed.

the firstborn Jewish son always had “preeminence” of everything"; He has first place in everything.

Yes.

I wonder, though, if someone was called the “firstborn”, did that necessarily mean that there were other children in the family? That is, can an only child be a “firstborn”?

 

[benidict]

Believe it or not Jesus is God, He being God, suffered, and was tempted, He felt pain in the Cross. He being God could have made Himself “immune” to the pain and the temptations, but instead He overcame pain and temptations like a real human **without **His God powers, to teach man His example, He lived like a real human, and never sinned because He had faith in the One who sent Him. Stop implying I said something else please.

His God nature as you said was in every moment since the time His body was conceived, but His God nature didn’t got conceived, this nature was before Mary, this is my position.

Secondly if Mary is the “Mother of God”, she is not the Mother of God, she was the Mother of God.

1 Peter 3:18
“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.”

“Oh Peter!, heresy! how can you separated Jesus into two natures!”

I am only saying you can’t refute my position as well as I can’t refute your position because it is impossible for the “Only One True Church” to be err in doctrine and morals.
I was Catholic, I believed like a Catholic, so I know how Catholics think.

God bless you my friend.

fair enough, and you are correct! it is impossible for the One True Church to err in doctrine or morals. and for the record. i was a fundamentalist protestant, and i believed hook line and sinker what fundamentilism taught. so I know how fundamentalist think. so in areas like this, i think we need to go to the One True Church to get our answers. it is unfortunate that you felt like she didnt have them. God bless you, and my prayers for you my friend. Peace

 

[benidict]

Hi there
This is what you said. The answer is clear to me:

Jesus = God
AND
Mary = Mother of Jesus

THEREFORE
Mary = Mother of God

The problem is your opening line:
“Jesus = God”
This is incorrect.

The Bible clearly says that Jesus had a beginning and was the “first creation” and “only begotten” Son of God. Therefore he had a ‘father’ that lived before him in heaven. Jesus is a god for sure but not the Almighty God. He is the SON of God.

You probably believe in the trinity and it claims that all three are one, co-eternal, and all identically the one and same thing. (Check your encyclopedia for the exact wording of it)

This is where the thing falls to pieces and this is why you cant understand it. Problem is the opening line, and then the rest of it does not make sense.

It should be:

Jesus = not God
AND
Mary = Mother of Jesus

THEREFORE
Mary = Mother of Jesus

Not wanting to be argumentative, but even the Pope himself said that the trinity is a mystery. Why would the Almighty God make a mystery of himself and the relationship with his Son. We are supposed to understand the Bible, and its not supposed to be confusing, and yet over hundreds or longer, people have been arguing this very issue.

The origin of the trinity was long before Jesus Christ ever arrived here on Earth.

Do a google search on origin of trinity and start reading. Its not a secret.

I am loyal to the Bible, and it does not use the word “trinity.”

Respectfully and I know that many will choose to disagree with me, but there is no Biblical support for it.

bibleloyal

cool! do we finally have a jehovahs witness here? that would be awesome! dont be shy. do tell welcome to the forum. Peace p.s. im not going to lie to you. we are going to tussle! Peace

 

[PRmerger]

@PRMerger: You are just saying to all my answers: “You are accord to the Catholic Church.”

Absolutely NOT! Not everything you profess is “in accord with the CC” to be sure!

I was badly catechized(like almost every Catholic), but later on I really learned Catholic Beliefs while being Catholic, so yes I thought like a Catholic.

Again, I doubt that you “really learned Catholic beliefs”.

Here’s a basic question regarding Catholic beliefs:
Can you articulate why Catholics call priests “Father” even if it says in Scriptue “call no man father”?

 

[benidict]

Where does the Bible clearly say that Jesus had a beginning?

your right PR. i seem to remember Jesus saying " before abraham was…I AM! hmmm. sounds like hes claiming to be the one talking to moses from the burning bush, if im not mistaken. and i dont think i am. (no pun intended) because if i remember correctly, the Jews picked up stones to stone him. accusing him of blasphemy. they wouldnt have done that, if he wasnt claiming to be God. Peace and Grace to you

 

[PRmerger]

your right PR. i seem to remember Jesus saying " before abraham was…I AM! hmmm. sounds like hes claiming to be the one talking to moses from the burning bush, if im not mistaken. and i dont think i am. (no pun intended) because if i remember correctly, the Jews picked up stones to stone him. accusing him of blasphemy. they wouldnt have done that, if he wasnt claiming to be God. Peace and Grace to you

'zactly!

I’ve never gotten the “Jesus was killed because he was a revolutionary” argument.

Jesus was killed because as a Jew he claimed the most blasphemous thing any Jew could utter: I am God.

 

[benidict]

'zactly!

I’ve never gotten the “Jesus was killed because he was a revolutionary” argument.

Jesus was killed because as a Jew he claimed the most blasphemous thing any Jew could utter: I am God.

please correct me also. i feel very uncomfortable with people saying Mary gave birth to only Jesus human nature, and not the whole package. am i missing something here? i dont think we can seperate the two. somehow i offended a previous poster by stating they had done this. thx in advance. Peace