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

[Pat_De]

If it is possible for someone to claim to have faith in Christ, but actually not have “real” faith, how does one know that your faith in Christ is real (this is just a hypothetical question, not meant to inflame, 'kay?)

That is, couldn’t you be one of those folks who claims to have faith and then later walks away? And how do you know?

The Bible answers that question. Only God and the spirit in the man knows for sure. The Holy Spirit will witness to the persons spirit that it is real and the Bible outlines many characteristics of a real faith and the outward result will be a regenerate or life transformation that glorifies God and that others take notice of. Perseverance till the end is an outward example of a real faith, but the object of that faith is what counts. It is easier to identify a false faith than it is a real faith in my own opinion and the worse kind of faith is one that is built upon the foundation of sand with an outward appearance of godliness whos end is destruction. These are the self deceived and the people that travel on that broad road Jesus spoke of.

 

[Pat_De]

Of course God has always existed and always been omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal. None of that has anything to do with Mary being the Mother of God. It was God who created Mary. It was also God who chose to become her infant, conceived in her womb.

Mary being Mother of God no more implies that she preceded or created him than my calling my own mother “mother of JimG” implies that she created my immortal soul. That, of course, was done by God. She’s still my mother, and I have an immortal soul. I don’t call her the “mother of JimG the body but not JimG the soul.” I’m one person with one mother.

Jesus is just one person–the second person of the Trinity, and Mary is his mother.

Hi Jim,

You put it in a very non-Catholic context. Yes Mary is the birth mother of Jesus, the fully human and fully God man. But she is no co-mediatrix or any of the other titles and worship given to her, such as “Queen of Heaven”. Based on the CC context, then they have to deal with the passages where Jesus was told His mother and brothers were calling him and He responded, who are my mother and brother and looking at His disciples He gave the answer; so in the same context then there would be many “Mothers of Jesus”.

 

[JimG]

Hi Jim,

You put it in a very non-Catholic context. Yes Mary is the birth mother of Jesus, the fully human and fully God man. But she is no co-mediatrix or any of the other titles and worship given to her, such as “Queen of Heaven”. Based on the CC context, then they have to deal with the passages where Jesus was told His mother and brothers were calling him and He responded, who are my mother and brother and looking at His disciples He gave the answer; so in the same context then there would be many “Mothers of Jesus”.

Jesus does speak metaphorically sometimes. I doubt that he really meant to claim his disciples as his biological birth mothers. I was addressing only the title of Mary as Mother of God. That title tells us who Jesus is.

 

[rwillenborg]

You will not find an instance in all of Scripture when the term First born in the context of the first child did not indicate there were more than one child; the phrase “only child” (i.e.Judges 11:34) would clarify this. Doesn’t matter, most Christians know that Scripture clearly identifies that Mary and Joseph had other children. The concept of immaculate conception and perpetual virginity came along much later and is part of your religious beliefs born from tradition of the CC and not from Scripture. I do not believe it is a grave error; so its importance concerning salvation is nil, but it can show an indication of one’s ability to comprehend Scripture in my estimations.

Exodus 11:5

Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

So, is it your understanding that this means that only those boys who had siblings were killed?

 

[PRmerger]

Exodus 11:5

Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

So, is it your understanding that this means that only those boys who had siblings were killed?

'zactly.

And I will re-cite Yada’s excellent comment: (BB codes mine)

"And if you say there has to be other children for there to be first born you do not understand Jewish [and just about every other] culture …

There are [were] ritual sacrifices that had to be performed upon the birth of the “first born” child [especially of sons] …** These were always performed for the birth of that child - never did they wait to see if another child was to be born before offering same **[you can see how silly that would be] … nor did they wait to see if this would be an ‘ony’ child because the only child would still b the "first"

Also, how long would this child be called or considered - a whatever? As in - not ‘first’ and not an ‘only’ … some sort of limbo … keeping its parents in suspense … Honey, is this our first born or only? .… Uh, uh - I am not sure yet!

[SIGN1]The first born is just that regardless of any child that follows or does not follow! [/SIGN1]

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible answers that question. Only God and the spirit in the man knows for sure. The Holy Spirit will witness to the persons spirit that it is real and the Bible outlines many characteristics of a real faith and the outward result will be a regenerate or life transformation that glorifies God and that others take notice of. Perseverance till the end is an outward example of a real faith, but the object of that faith is what counts. It is easier to identify a false faith than it is a real faith in my own opinion and the worse kind of faith is one that is built upon the foundation of sand with an outward appearance of godliness whos end is destruction. These are the self deceived and the people that travel on that broad road Jesus spoke of.

So it’s possible for someone to think he’s has a saving faith but not actually have a saving faith? Only God and the spirit in the man knows for sure?

How can that give anyone any “assurance” of salvation?

 

[PRmerger]

Mary being Mother of God no more implies that she preceded or created him than my calling my own mother “mother of JimG” implies that she created my immortal soul. That, of course, was done by God. She’s still my mother, and I have an immortal soul. I don’t call her the “mother of JimG the body but not JimG the soul.” I’m one person with one mother.

:extrahappy::dancing::tiphat::clapping:

 

[PRmerger]

You will not find an instance in all of Scripture when the term First born in the context of the first child did not indicate there were more than one child

That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, Pat. It is a man-made tradition you have succombed to.

40 The LORD said to Moses, “Count all the firstborn Israelite males who are a month old or more and make a list of their names. 41 Take the Levites for me in place of all the firstborn of the Israelites, and the livestock of the Levites in place of all the firstborn of the livestock of the Israelites. I am the LORD.”

42 So Moses counted all the firstborn of the Israelites, as the LORD commanded him. 43 The total number of firstborn males a month old or more, listed by name, was 22,273.

44 The LORD also said to Moses, 45 "Take the Levites in place of all the firstborn of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites in place of their livestock. The Levites are to be mine. I am the LORD. Numbers 3

How in the world could there be “firstborn males a month old” who had sibilings? :whacky:

Firstborn refers only to the child who “opened the womb” of his mother.

Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal. Exodus 13

Look at this page, from biblegateway, of 109 references to “firstborn” in Scripture. How many of them mention a second born?

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t matter, most Christians know that Scripture clearly identifies that Mary and Joseph had other children. The concept of immaculate conception and perpetual virginity came along much later and is part of your religious beliefs born from tradition of the CC and not from Scripture.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

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 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’?”

 

[Jesness]

This always seems like a samantic argument to me. The title “Mother of God” seems fine to me, if you consider that she is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God.

However, we have a tendency to link being a mother with being the source of a life; I kinda figure that Mary can be the mother of God without actually being the source of His life; which would be impossible because she herself is a created thing and He is the Sovereign Lord God of all creation. She can be his mother without being His source, if only because He made it to be so. That’s how I look at it anyway. She is his mother, but not the source of his being.

 

[dianaiad]

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’?”

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!

 

[dianaiad]

This always seems like a samantic argument to me. The title “Mother of God” seems fine to me, if you consider that she is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God.

However, we have a tendency to link being a mother with being the source of a life; I kinda figure that Mary can be the mother of God without actually being the source of His life; which would be impossible because she herself is a created thing and He is the Sovereign Lord God of all creation. She can be his mother without being His source, if only because He made it to be so. That’s how I look at it anyway. She is his mother, but not the source of his being.

You seem to have, as I did, answered the question asked by the OP…which is why Protestants and other non-Catholics don’t feel comfortable with calling Mary “the mother of God.” It’s not that she is not His mother…it’s the connotation of the phrase as used by many Catholics that concerns us; that extra agrandizement that causes the hesitation…the phrase “Mother of God” rather brings with it the idea that she IS the 'source of His Being."
…at least, to non-Catholics.

 

[Pat_De]

Jesus does speak metaphorically sometimes. I doubt that he really meant to claim his disciples as his biological birth mothers. I was addressing only the title of Mary as Mother of God. That title tells us who Jesus is.

Off course He wasn’t referring to His disciples as a biological mother et al; He was making the spiritual point to the entire crowd that whosoever believes in Him is His mother, brother, sister, which is the context of the passage. He was using the literal calling of His biological mother and brothers to make a spiritual point of who truly is His mother, brother sister in the salvation context. He used a carnal opportunity to make a spiritual point; just as He often did. I will tell you this that Mary is no greater a saint than any other saint according to the word of God. Was she used in a special way? Yes, but all true saints are used of God in special ways in which most go unnoticed.

 

[Pat_De]

Exodus 11:5

Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

So, is it your understanding that this means that only those boys who had siblings were killed?

Is that what I said? Nope; you are using a poor tactic by addressing a different point than the core issue that was brought up, which is you will not find a reference in Scripture that speaks in the context of “first born” child where there were not any other children unless Scripture states explicitly that it was the first born and only child. Totally different issue you bring up. Most Christians believe that Mary and Joseph had other children based on the Word of God and most specifically Jesus own words. Whether you believe they had other children or not does not change the truth or deny one’s salvation, but it is an indication of one’s ability to comprehend Scripture or possibly an indication that one does not care much for the reading and study of His Word in my opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

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!

Interesting argument, Diana, about the “nature of the society.”

It also is the answer to why firstborn means only “the child who opened up the womb.” Not the first of many. It was the nature of the society to offer sacrifices at the birth of one’s firstborn. Ridiculous to assume that these societies had to wait until the birth of their second child in order for a sacrifice to be made in the name of the firstborn!

 

[dianaiad]

Is that what I said? Nope; you are using a poor tactic by addressing a different point than the core issue that was brought up, which is you will not find a reference in Scripture that speaks in the context of “first born” child where there were not any other children unless Scripture states explicitly that it was the first born and only child. Totally different issue you bring up. Most Christians believe that Mary and Joseph had other children based on the Word of God and most specifically Jesus own words. Whether you believe they had other children or not does not change the truth or deny one’s salvation, but it is an indication of one’s ability to comprehend Scripture or possibly an indication that one does not care much for the reading and study of His Word in my opinion.

Point of order on numbers here. Don’t get me wrong: I think Mary probably had other children by her husband, too…but since NO Catholic does, and a whole bunch of other Christians agree with them, how does that translate into 'most Christians believe that Mary and Joseph had other children?"

M" just sayin, is all…

Diana, remembering that the number of people who believe a thing affects the truth of that thing…not one little bit.

 

[PRmerger]

dianaiad;6913292**:

it’s the connotation of the phrase as used by many Catholics that concerns us;

that extra agrandizement that causes the hesitation…the phrase “Mother of God” rather brings with it the idea that she IS the 'source of His Being."
…at least, to non-Catholics.

That’s exactly what we’re saying, Diana. There is NO connotation of agrandizement used by Catholics regarding theotokos. That has been imposed upon us by nonCatholics.

It’s like us non-Mormons saying, “Each time invoke Joseph Smith’s name you’re elevating him above God.”

 

[dianaiad]

That’s exactly what we’re saying, Diana. There is NO connotation of agrandizement used by Catholics regarding theotokos. That has been imposed upon us by nonCatholics.

It’s like us non-Mormons saying, “Each time invoke Joseph Smith’s name you’re elevating him above God.”

Please note; I wasn’t claiming that non-Catholic Christians are correct in their perceptions, y’know. The question was asked in the OP, and I gave it my best shot; connotations are emotional things. If the phrase “Mother of God” means something different to a Protestant than it does to a Catholic to the point that using it WOULD elevate her to a position that Catholics don’t when they use it, then…

they are right not to use it.

(looking.)

Goodness. I hope you followed that. I got lost.

Diana

 

[PRmerger]

Please note; I wasn’t claiming that non-Catholic Christians are correct in their perceptions, y’know. The question was asked in the OP, and I gave it my best shot; connotations are emotional things. If the phrase “Mother of God” means something different to a Protestant than it does to a Catholic to the point that using it WOULD elevate her to a position that Catholics don’t when they use it, then…

they are right not to use it.

(looking.)

Goodness. I hope you followed that. I got lost.

Diana

Ummmm…yep, I think I got it.

You’re saying that it’s wrong that non-Cs believe that Catholics over-estimate the veneration of Mary by Catholics’ use of the term Mother of God, yes?