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

[onenow1]

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.

Indeed Jesness! Jesus{God} is ultimately the source of all life. I think all should be aware, we are participants in creation. I believe, Mary understood this, so she declares in her fiat below.
Luke 1. “Let it be done to me according to your Word.”

In Genesis 1: 28, God blessed them and said be fruitful. multiply, fill the earth and SUBDUE IT.

We are all participants in one way or another. However, Mary indeed holds a role as important, as any other faithful figure of scripture wouldn’t you say ?

Who else has nurtured the Son, that has the same substance in Him as the Father, They are one, after all is said and done.

God Bless
onenow1opcorn:

 

[Pat_De]

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

Not necessarily; you have to look at the whole of Scripture, which you are not and why I said you will not find the “first born” without the assumption of other children unless Scripture points it out explicitly.

Consider this: He said,*** “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”***-- Genesis 22 Was Isaac the only son when God spoke this? Was Isaac ever referred to as the “first born”? Is there an error in Scripture here?

If you look at Genesis 16, where Ishmael is referenced; there is never used the term first born for either one of them, yet with Lots daughters, the firstborn is used. God knows exactly what He is saying and why He has said and in the context to how He speaks; He is very meticulous in this manner. So you can bet when you see the term “first born” used in reference to any family in Scripture there are other siblings unless stated otherwise.

On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father."– Genesis 19

The Scripture always follows a pattern and when their is an exception it will explain it.

 

[Pat_De]

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?

Just as the Scripture teaches.

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.– Romans 8

---

11 For who among men knows the {thoughts} of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the {thoughts} of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.}*** — 1 Corinthians 2

You know your own thoughts and no one else does except who? God. So is your mind preoccupied with God or with something else? No one can answer that but you and God. It is the sins of thought that really tell the “man” where His faith truly lies. Many tares are among the wheat and many are so good at deception they cannot be distinguished.

 

[Pat_De]

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?

The implication is there will be more than one unless specifically stated in Scripture as I have already pointed out three times now. What this boils down to is a denial of the fact that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters, which as I said before and will state again does not matter in a matter of salvation, but is an implication of how one comprehends the Word of God in my opinion.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

I think it’s 'wrong" in that it is probably incorrect, yes. If you are defining ‘wong’ as 'intentially evil…" then probably not; being incorrect isn’t a sin, it’s just annoying when you bump heads with it.

Doesn’t stop them from doing it, though…anymore than being wrong about it stops people from claiming that Catholics pray to Mary (in the sense of worship, not pleas for intercession),

Language; it’s a weird, wonderful, endlessly fascinating thing.

 

[PRmerger]

The implication is there will be more than one unless specifically stated in Scripture as I have already pointed out three times now.

Scripture says NO SUCH THING. This is another man-made tradition.

Unless you can show me where it says in Scripture “firstborn means more than one unless Scripture specifically says so.” Chapter and verse, please.

And can you tell me how there can be “firstborn males a month old” who have little siblings?

 

[PRmerger]

Just as the Scripture teaches.

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.– Romans 8

---

11 For who among men knows the {thoughts} of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the {thoughts} of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.}*** — 1 Corinthians 2

You know your own thoughts and no one else does except who? God. So is your mind preoccupied with God or with something else? No one can answer that but you and God. It is the sins of thought that really tell the “man” where His faith truly lies. Many tares are among the wheat and many are so good at deception they cannot be distinguished.

Well, I’m just sayin’, Pat, if there are those who* think* they are saved but actually aren’t, and you think you’re saved…

Which brings to mind an amusing exchange I read between apologist John Martignoni and a non-Catholic Christian:

Every believer in once saved always saved that I have ever met, also believes that there are those out there who think they are saved, but really are not – the faux believers, as I call them. So, ask anyone who believes in OSAS these questions (this is from an actual conversation):

Question: Are ther e people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?

Answer: Yes, there are.

Question: Are you saved?

Answer: Yes, I am.

Question: How do you know you’re not one of those people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?

Answer: I know in my heart that I am saved.

Question: Wouldn’t someone who thinks they’re saved, but really aren’t saved, say the same thing?

Answer: I suppose so.

Question: Then how do you know you’re really saved?

Answer: I just know.

Question: How do you know?

Answer: I just do.

The whole point of this line of questioning is that, if it is possible to think you’re saved, but not really be saved, then no one can have eternal security – no one can know for sure that they are saved – because anyone who thinks they’re saved could actually be one of those who think they are but really aren’t.

 

[CWBetts]

Why is she not the Mother of the Holy Spirit if Jesus, the Father, and Holy Spirit are one?
Perhaps that would clarify this for me.

The Son is God, but distinct from Father and Holy Spirit. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God you must choose between tow heresies:

Modalism-which holds that Father, Son, and Spirit are indistinguishable.

Nestorianism–Which holds that God was not Born, and Gid did not die on the Cross, but rather a man was born and a man died, and the DIvine Logos was merely with him.

So which is it?

 

[benidict]

Things based on experience is far inferior to those based on facts. The best is when the two meet in harmony such is the case with the Gospel of God and the Person of Jesus as revealed in Scripture.

agreed. but my conversion to Catholocism, was nothing short of miraculous. it was a strong combination of Facts, and experiences that led me to the Church. i truly believe in a called out Church. and this Church is the One started by Jesus himself. Catholicism is the only faith that is completely biblical, and keeps the traditions handed down to them by the apostles. also it would be a rather lengthy explanation beyond the doctrinal issues with protestantism, as to why i fell away. it was not as simple as just not being in agreement, and leaving. it was far more serious than that. they really lacked answers at a critical time in my life. Peace

 

[Dokimas]

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!

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.

 

[PRmerger]

Answering the topic question: because God pre-existed her.

Well, then, Doki, you are very Catholic to say that!

As St. Augustine said, “He whom the world could not contain was contained in the womb of a mother.”

 

[CWBetts]

If Jesus is God, that is, If the Son is God, and took the flesh, and he was truly born of Mary, then how can Mary be not the Mother of God. Furthermore, if GO were not truly born in this way, did God truy die on the Cross? If he was not truly born, He cannot truly die, and if He was truly born, how could He not truly die? And If he was not truly born, and he did not truly die, then how, pray tell, are we saved? Mary is the Mother of God precisely because God was truly born, in his incarnation He did truly die, and His death and Resurrection are how we are saved.

 

[onenow1]

Call me crazy but the verses below certainly seem plain. Let’s see Savior, Christ and Lord, spoken by, none other than the Angels speaking the words of God. Probably Gabriel again.

And the angel said to them, "Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a SAVIOR, who is CHRIST the LORD Luke 2: 10-11

God Bless All
onenow1

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.
Saint Augustine

 

[jlhargus]

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.

JL: A surrogate does not conceive that which is incubated would already be conceived and implanted. Mary’s egg was used per scripture as she conceived

Gn 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed …

Mt 1:20 …Joseph son of David do not fear to take Mary your wife for that which is CONCEIVED IN HER is of the Holy Spirit

Lk 1:31 …behold you will CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB womb and bear a son…
Lk 1:36 …Elizabeth …has also conceived a son…

Lk 2:21 …when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child his name was called Jesus which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

 

[Dokimas]

JL: A surrogate does not conceive that which is incubated would already be conceived and implanted. Mary’s egg was used per scripture as she conceived

Gn 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed …

Mt 1:20 …Joseph son of David do not fear to take Mary your wife for that which is CONCEIVED IN HER is of the Holy Spirit

Lk 1:31 …behold you will CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB womb and bear a son…
Lk 1:36 …Elizabeth …has also conceived a son…

Lk 2:21 …when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child his name was called Jesus which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

I looked up the Greek words for conceived for the verses you quoted and it’s not clear that her ovum was used.

 

[CWBetts]

I looked up the Greek words for conceived for the verses you quoted and it’s not clear that her ovum was used.

How long are you going to persist in your Nestorianism?

 

[Searching4Eden]

Marian Doctrine is one of the toughest for non-Catholics to accept. I am recently converted, so hopefully I can explain quickly and simply.

Protestant Christians do believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus, but that she was merely a vessel used by God to fulfill His will. Her role (according to Protestant theology) was no more significant than that of any other mother in history.

For me, it seems that Catholics have more respect for the role of women in general, probably because of the esteem to which we hold Mary.

Hope that helps.

 

[guanophore]

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.

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.

 

[jlhargus]

I looked up the Greek words for conceived for the verses you quoted and it’s not clear that her ovum was used.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

JL: Luke uses the same word for Elizabeth conceiving in LK1:31 as he does for Mary conceiving in Lk1:31 & Lk2:21

That’s it. Dokimas’ argument refuted, rather nicely. Thanks, jl!