Some questions about Mary

[rom323]

jimmy:

You are correct, Jesus is both man and God. But, that does not affect the fact that Mary is the mother of God. Jesus was God, not 30% God, not 50% God, you couldn’t say he is 95% God. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. Jesus by nature is a man and is God at the same time. Mary gave birth to Jesus, Elizabeth called her “the mother of my lord”, so she is the mother of God. By denying Mary the title of “mother of God”, you unwittingly deny the incarnation of God. In the 5th century there was a heresy called the nestorian heresy. They claimed that Jesus was not God untill his baptism and the Spirit desended upon him. They refused to call Mary the mother of God on this account. In like AD 431 the council of Ephesis condemned this heresy. They anathematized those who refused to call Mary the mother of God because those who refused it denied the incarnation of God, in the Arian heresy and in the nestorian heresy.

Mary is the daughter of God the Father, the mother of God the Son, and the spouse of God the Holy Gost.

Obviously you missed this point:

The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."

Please respond to this point.

 

[rom323]

hlgomez:

Rom323,

How do you understand what Elizabeth has said in calling Him “Lord”? Remember that Elizabeth was “filled with the Holy Spirit” when she exclaimed those words to Mama Mary–so don’t even try to make a febble attempt to discredit the meaning of Scriptures!

Lord simply means in Hebrew “Adonai.” If you put it more clearly, it means “Yahweh,” but Lord is preferred by the Jews because they fear even the mentioning of the words "YHWH."

**You are actually trying to rationalize the words that came out of Elizabeth’s mouth–that mainly comes from the Holy Spirit. **Are you then to say something like this to Mary; “How could this be, that the mother of my (human) Lord should come to me?” This is Nestorionism, trying to separate the One Person of Christ. Mary was the Mother of the Person, not natures.

Of course we are not trying to say that the Eternal Word made flesh, who was from eternity to eternity God, was made into existence in Mary’s sacred womb. That’s a very irrational argument. Being the Mother of the Eternal Word does not mean that mary “created” Him in her womb–because God is uncreated.

If you look at yourself for example, are you then to say you are a son of your mother only in nature, not person? Such that we would say, Rom323 was not the son of his mother, but Rom323’s nature was?

God Bless,

Pio

Let me repeat:

**JESUS IS BOTH GOD AND MAN **yet you continue refer to Him ONLY AS GOD! The problem arises because you cannot state that all of Jesus is God, because nothing in Jesus’ humanity can be considered divine! Therefore, you cannot say that Mary is the mother of ALL OF JESUS, but ONLY OF HIS HUMANITY!
The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."
Please respond to this point only!

 

[rom323]

Mickey:

Mary is mother of God the Son, second person of the Trinity, and Savior of the world. St John Damascus said, " The Word did not take His divinity from Mary, but the Word who had been with the Father from all eternity took flesh from her when the time of the incarnation had come".

Therefore, when the Word became flesh, Mary became Theotokos (God-bearer) because you cannot separate the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ. (hypostatic union) This was accepted by all of Christianity many centuries ago. (except by those who adhered to the nestorian heresy). SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU PREFER TO FOLLOW THE BELIEFS OF NESTORIAN BY DENYING THAT MARY WAS THEOTOKOS? You seem to subscribe to “Christotokos”. That IS the nestorian heresy! Funny how heresies repeat themselves.

The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."

I believe that Mary is Theotokos (God-bearer) however she is not God’s mother! God is a Trinity therefore, she is not HIS mother! How many ways must I put it before you see the distinction?

 

[rom323]

mercygate:

Rom323,

The whole “Mother of God/Theotokos” title was hashed out at the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. None of the reformation Protestant denominations repudiated that theology. In fact, R. C. Sproul, my favorite card-carrying sola Scriptura/sola fide Presbyterian, is an eloquent defender of the title “Mother of God.”

That title is about the hypostatic union. Jesus is ONE divine PERSON with TWO natures: human and divine. Mary is the mother of the whole person. The term ‘Mother of God’ does not mean that she is the mother of God the Father.

It’s not like these doctrines are obscure. We are glad to help answer real questions, but when attacks come, like yours, in voluminous barrages, there is no excuse for having no accurate knowledge of the subject.

I thought the subject of this thread was “some questions about Mary”? Well I question why Mary is called “the mother of God” when she clearly is not! A mother brings new life into existence. Since God existed from all eternity, this can not be the case!

You have stated, “** Jesus is ONE divine PERSON with TWO natures: human and divine” **yet in using the term "mother of God, you continue to ignore His humanity!

Isn’t this a valid point?

 

[rom323]

Genesis315:

Ok, here’s your problem. Your mindset is stuck in Cartesian Dualism mode. We are body and soul. Just a body or just a soul is not fully human. These things are inseparable except at death, at which time there is a traumatic separation. Luckily our bodies are reunited with our spirit in Heaven and we become whole again (if you don’t believe in the resurrection of the body, then I can see why you may have trouble with this concept, maybe you should start a new thread on it). Likewise, you can’t separate Jesus’ humanity and divinity. He is one entity, not two. Mary was not called Christ-bearer because that gave leeway (sp?) for the Nestorians to still claim He was in essence two entities. By calling Mary Mother of God, there is no room for any interpretaion other than Jesus is one entity, both human and divine. He was this one human and divine entity when He was in Mary’s womb. She gave gave birth to this one human and divine entity. She is the mother of this one human and divine entity.

(ps: unless you’re a lady, don’t give me the lovey dovey smiley, you’re weirding me out )

OK, here’s your problem. You say that Jesus is human and divine but you refer to Mary as “the mother of God” but not the mother of man! In doing so, you are denying that Jesus was also man! Do you see where I’m coming from?

 

[jimmy]

rom323:

OK, here’s your problem. You say that Jesus is human and divine but you refer to Mary as “the mother of God” but not the mother of man! In doing so, you are denying that Jesus was also man! Do you see where I’m coming from?

No, it does not deny that Mary was the mother of a man. The title “mother of God” makes no claim on whether Mary was the mother of a man or not. It is not mentioned. If you want to see that, read the Nicene Creed.

By denying Mary the title, “mother of God” you deny that she gave birth to God. The difference is that we do not deny Mary the title, “mother of a man”, but you deny her the title “mother of God”. She was the mother of God. She gave birth to 100% God, she gave birth to 100% man.

 

[jimmy]

rom323:

I thought the subject of this thread was “some questions about Mary”? Well I question why Mary is called “the mother of God” when she clearly is not! A mother brings new life into existence. Since God existed from all eternity, this can not be the case!

You have stated, “** Jesus is ONE divine PERSON with TWO natures: human and divine” **yet in using the term "mother of God, you continue to ignore His humanity!

Isn’t this a valid point?

You are wrong, we do not ignore his humanity by giving Mary the title. We do not deny she was the mother of a man. You deny that she was the mother of God and gave birth to God though.

Mary concieved God in her womb shortly after the annunciation. If you read Luke 1 closely you can see that the angel tells Mary that “he shall be called the Son of the most high”, shortly after he says, “thou shalt concieve in thy womb, and thou shalt bring forth a son”. This basically says that she concieved the Son of God.

Think about it, the Son of God, second of the Trinity, was concieved in her womb. He was there from the very beginning.

 

[jimmy]

rom323:

The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."

I believe that Mary is Theotokos (God-bearer) however she is not God’s mother! God is a Trinity therefore, she is not HIS mother! How many ways must I put it before you see the distinction?

We do not deny Mary, “mother of man”. You deny her, “mother of God”. You contradict yourself in your own post. You say “she gave birth a person who was both God and man”, but then you say it is not proper to call her “mother of God”. You are contradicting yourself.

The Son is God by himself. The Holy Spirit is God by himself. The Father is God by himself. Mary gave birth to the Son, who is completely God.

You are making a destinction that does not exist. The Son of God is man and God. Just like we are man or woman and spirit. There were two natures to Christ, but they were one person. Christ’s body is with him in heaven. He is a man, while he is God. Mary concieve both natures at the same time.

 

[jimmy]

rom323:

The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."

I believe that Mary is Theotokos (God-bearer) however she is not God’s mother! God is a Trinity therefore, she is not HIS mother! How many ways must I put it before you see the distinction?

What I find amazing is that you accept the doctrine of two natures, which was declared at the Catholic Council of Chalcedon in AD 454, but you do not accept the doctrine of Mary as “mother of God”, which was declared at the Catholic Council of Ephesis in AD 431.

Chalcedon declared that those who believe Christ had one nature, that was both human and divine were anathema. The teaching was that there are two seperate natures, one human, the other divine. This is still the teaching of the Church.

 

[jimmy]

rom323:

Obviously you missed this point:

The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."

Please respond to this point.

My statement in that post does not deny the humanity of Jesus, it only affirms the divinity of Jesus. If I want to say that Mary is not the mother of humanity, I would have to say “Mary is not the mother of a man.”. Then you would be correct, but I have never made that claim.

The fact that we call Mary the “mother of God” actually affirms the humanity of Jesus. The fact that we are calling her his mother assumes that he is a man. A woman can not give birth to a mouse or a rat or a squid or anything like that. She can only give birth to a man. That man she gave birth to was God. So, the word mother in the title affirms that Jesus is a man, and the word God affirms that he is God.

I enjoy these discussions, thankyou for the great dialogue.

 

[Mickey]

rom323:

The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."

I believe that Mary is Theotokos (God-bearer) however she is not God’s mother! God is a Trinity therefore, she is not HIS mother! How many ways must I put it before you see the distinction?

We all responded to this already. You cannot separate the divine and human natures of Jesus. Jesus Christ is God the son! The second person of the Holy Trinity. When the word became flesh, Mary became the mother of God the son, in the person of Jesus Christ, who was fully divine and fully human. How many times must we say it! You don’t separate the two natures! Have you been reading Jimmy’s posts? He explains it quite eloquently. Now I have a question for you that you did not answer. **Do you subscribe to the nestorian heresy? **

Patiently awaiting your response.

 

[mercygate]

rom323:

I thought the subject of this thread was “some questions about Mary”? Well I question why Mary is called “the mother of God” when she clearly is not! A mother brings new life into existence. Since God existed from all eternity, this can not be the case!

You have stated, “** Jesus is ONE divine PERSON with TWO natures: human and divine” **yet in using the term "mother of God, you continue to ignore His humanity!

Isn’t this a valid point?

rom323,
It is not a valid point, which you should know by now since we have pointed it out a dozen times in referring to the hypostatic union. This is an old, well delineated doctrine and a hingepin for understanding the Incarnation. I exhort you to look it up for yourself rather than just yelling at us.

If you won’t accept the testimony of Catholics, go do orthodox Protestants. Again I recommend R. C. Sproul (www.ligonier.org). This doctrine is fundamental to Christianity across the board, not just to Catholics.

 

[mtr01]

Mickey:

We all responded to this already. You cannot separate the divine and human natures of Jesus. Jesus Christ is God the son! The second person of the Holy Trinity. When the word became flesh, Mary became the mother of God the son, in the person of Jesus Christ, who was fully divine and fully human. How many times must we say it! You don’t separate the two natures! Have you been reading Jimmy’s posts? He explains it quite eloquently. Now I have a question for you that you did not answer. **Do you subscribe to the nestorian heresy? **

Patiently awaiting your response.

Perhaps he might be persuaded by St. Augustine’s exposition of Christology. It is generally considered the reason why the Nestorian heresy did not gain a much of a foothold in the West:

Wherefore, Christ Jesus, the Son of God, is both God and man. He is God before all ages; man in our own time. He is God because he is the Word of God, *for the Word was God (Jn 1:1). *But He is man because in His own Person there were joined to the Word a rational soul and body. Therefore, so far as He is God, He and the Father are one (Jn 10:30). but so far as He is man, the Father is greater than He (Jn 14:28). Since He was the only Son of God, not by grace but by nature, in order that he should also be full of grace He became likewise the son of man; and the one selfsame Christ results from the union of both. For, *being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be (Phil 2:6) *what he was in nature, that is, *equal with God; but he emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:7), *neither losing nor diminishing the form of God.

And thus He became less and still remained equal, being both in one, as has been said. In the one instance this was because He was the Word; in the other, because He became man. As the Word He is equal to the Father; as man he is less. The one Son of God, he is at the same time Son of man; the one Son of man, He is at the same time Son of God. Being God and man did not make Him two Sons of God (Lege Scripturas, nunquam invenies de Christo dictum quod *adoptivus *sit Filius Dei), but one Son of God: God without beginning, man with a definite beginning - our Lord Jesus Christ.

Augustine, *Enchiridion (Faith, Hope and Charity), *Ch. 10, #35.
Emphasis in orginal (relevent footnotes in parentheses)

 

[Mickey]

mtr01:

Perhaps he might be persuaded by St. Augustine’s exposition of Christology. It is generally considered the reason why the Nestorian heresy did not gain a much of a foothold in the West:

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_100.gif

 

[mtr01]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_100.gif

I just acquired this little volume of Augustine’s, and what happy coincidence I read these passages just yesterday. I hope it is not too much of an imposition if I post the subsequent section (which is perhaps even more relevent to the present discussion):

Here above all the grace of God manifests itself with striking sublimity. For, what had the human nature of the man Christ merited that it should be so singularly taken up into the unity of the Person of the only Son of God? What good will, what striving for good ends, what good works had gone before, in virtue of which this man would become one person with God? Had He been man before this, and was this unique grace bestowed upon Him because He had singularly merited to become God? Not at all. From the moment that he began to be man, He did not begin to be other than the Son of God, the only Son of God; and because of God the Word which by assuming Him had become flesh, he was truly God.

Just as every human being is one person, that is, a rational soul and a body, so, too, is Christ one Person, the Word and man. And why was so great glory bestowed upon human nature - gratuitously, of course, as there were no antecedent merits? For the sole reason that here all who would consider the matter in the light of faith and reason might have a clear manifestation of God’s great and extraordinary grace; and that thus men might understand that they are justified from their sins by the same grace by which the man Christ was made incapable of any sin whatever. And thus did the angel greet His Mother when he announced to her His future birth: *Hail, *said he, full of grace; and a little later he added: *Thou hast found grace with God (Lk 1:28,30). *And she is called full of grace and said to have found favor with God, for she was to become the mother of her Lord, indeed, of the Lord of all. Again, when the evangelist John said of Christ Himself: *And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, *he added: *and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (Jn 1:14). *When he says “the Word was made flesh,” he means, “full of grace”; when he says, “the glory of the only-begotten of the Father,” he means, “full of truth.” Indeed, it was Truth itself, the only-begotten Son of God, not by grace but by nature, that gratuitously took upon Himself man in so perfect a union of Person that He himself also became the Son of man.

For truly the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, that is, the only Son of God our Lord, was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary.

Augustine, *Enchiridion (Faith, Hope and Charity), *Ch. 11, #36-37.
Emphasis in orginal (relevent footnotes in parentheses)

Again, I apologize for the quote, but the above sections seemed even more to speak of the Person of Christ and His birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[john_doran]

rom323:

OK, here’s your problem. You say that Jesus is human and divine but you refer to Mary as “the mother of God” but not the mother of man! In doing so, you are denying that Jesus was also man! Do you see where I’m coming from?

jesus is god, but jesus is only a man - he is not “man”, in the sense of “humanity”.

when we say that jesus is god and man, we mean that he is both divine and human; we do not mean that he something like “god and humanity”.

incidentally, you have yet to provide me with a list of modern greek scholars who have dismissed the translation of kecharitomene as “full of grace”…

 

[john_doran]

rom323:

I thought the subject of this thread was “some questions about Mary”? Well I question why Mary is called “the mother of God” when she clearly is not! A mother brings new life into existence. Since God existed from all eternity, this can not be the case!

You have stated, “** Jesus is ONE divine PERSON with TWO natures: human and divine” **yet in using the term "mother of God, you continue to ignore His humanity!

Isn’t this a valid point?

when catholics call mary “the mother of god”, they do NOT mean that mary is the creator of god. they mean simply that mary is the mother of an individual who is both fully human and fully divine.

do you honestly believe that catholics think that mary is the cause of god’s existence? seriously - do you?

 

[reggie]

rom323

What do you hope to gain here? I have read every post and you have not stated anything that is new. Many of the objections and “Scriptural” evidence you give have been debated by theologians of the Catholic Church for centuries. I put Scriptural in quotations because you espouse the translations that you accept, while dismissing out of hand those used by Catholics.
Now I understand that what I am saying is basically falling on deaf ears, because you are operating from the position that the Church teaches error and therefore cannot possibly be the Church Jesus founded. It is the positions of most protestants that the NT is the be all and end all of Jesus’s teachings but that is not the position of the Church. John in his Gospel says that he is writing so that we might know Jesus, believe in Him and in believing, be saved. John also writes that the world could not contain the books that would be written, if the many other things that Jesus did were written down.

We are told in the NT to hold fast to all we hear, either by spoken word or letter. We are also told that Scriptures are not for personal interpretation. You must accept these things to understand the Church. You must trust Jesus when He said that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth. He says explicitly that He has other things to tell the Apostles but that they were not yet ready to hear it. But all of this requires faith. Not just faith that through Jesus you are saved, but faith in all the words of Jesus.

Now it was put forth to you that if Jesus had in fact proclaimed the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, would you risk hell denying it? Well, through the infallibility of the Church, Jesus has proclaimed this. We know it’s true because we know that the Holy Spirit does not allow the Church to teach error.

Of course, I expect you will have apoplectic fits when reading this as you deny all claims made by the Church. I would just have you consider this. Whether you wish it to be so or not, the core beliefs of Christianity were formulated and formally defined by councils of the Catholic Church. Even the Canon of the Bible is due to Catholic Councils.

Now, I invite you to read John 21:20-23 when Peter questioned Jesus about John. I will not recount the entire text here but find Jesus’ response edifying, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

So I say to you, if Jesus has proclaimed through His Church the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary and her title as “Mother of God”, what is that to you? We are not illiterates of our faith here. We know your objections but we firmly reject them. You cannot accept this. So be it. Many of Jesus’ disciples could not accept other hard sayings of His and left Him. I, like Jesus, will not call you back. But, the Church is there for you if you ever want to let go of your prejudice and approach Her with a humble heart seeking truth.

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto thine.

 

[hlgomez]

Let me repeat:

**JESUS IS BOTH GOD AND MAN **

yet you continue refer to Him ONLY AS GOD! The problem arises because you cannot state that all of Jesus is God, because nothing in Jesus’ humanity can be considered divine! Therefore, you cannot say that Mary is the mother of ALL OF JESUS, but ONLY OF HIS HUMANITY!
The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."
Please respond to this point only!

ROM323,

YOU DON’T HAVE TO REPEAT IT, NESTORIUS.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

do you honestly believe that catholics think that mary is the cause of god’s existence? seriously - do you?

This is what Rom323 thinks, really–but Catholics don’t think it this way. Rom323, whether he is aware or not, bought the view of Bishop Nestorius who was anathemized by the Catholic Church at the Council of Ephesus in the year 425. So in short, his views regarding Mother Mary are nothing new to the Catholic Church. It is a very old heresy.

Rom323, to tell you honestly–any attack against the Mother of God is an attack on the Second Person of the Trinity, whether done deliberately or not. It always leads to the diminshing the true message of the Gospel regarding our Lord–especially His incarnation.

The doctrine of the Church is always that, at the moment of conception of the Second Person of the Trinity at the womb of the Blessed Mother, it was an hypostatic union–a natural union of the Divine and Human natures–a complete union and inseparable union. You can never separate them ever. So if you just say that Mary is just the Mother of the Human Person of Christ–you are guilty of unbelief in the Incarnation. You deny that God really became Human. Jesus is God-Man. Not either or.

May you be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

Pio