The Only Begotten Son of God is the God of Mary

[zarthan]

AGREED!

**Theotokos:
Its literal English translations include God-bearer and the one who gives birth to God. **Less literal translations include Mother of God.

The Creed of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, includes the Greek term “theotokos‟ to define the identity of Christ. “Theotokos” literally means ,God-bearer‟, which is loosely translated into Latin “Mater Dei” - Mother of God. The term was used to underline the fact that the child born of Mary was truly God, and thus to guard against the error that Christ was two persons in one body, rather than one person. This heresy, “Nestorianism”, was condemned at the First Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431.

We all agree Jesus the Christ is fully God and fully human and “Nestorianism” is a heresy.

Catholic teaching confirms that the second person of the Trinity (Christ; a title not a name) was for all of eternity past the “Son of God”. (Begotten, not created, the same substance of God)
c.s.lewis gives some good analogies here : chapter 23
ldolphin.org/CSLtrinity.html

There was never a time when Christ was NOT the “Son of God”
There was never a time when the Son of God did not have a father
There was a time when the Son of God did not have a mother.
The Son of God existed for most of eternity without a mother.
The Son of God did not require a mother to be the Son of God.
Mary became a mother (there was a time when she was not a mother) **Christ never became **a son (Christ was never “not a son”)

We all agree that Mary is the Theotokos, but the imprecise translation of Theotokos to Mother of God causes so much confusion that it requires much explanation.

I have no problem with Mary being called the “God bearer”, rather than God’s mother. Indeed, she carried the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ in her womb to full term, and gave birth to him. This is an especially unique and most honorable election for the Virgin Mary in bringing God’s anointed into the world.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

In many ways this is the argument some of the Gnostic sects beleived…Jesus wasn’t really “human”…he only appeared to be.

Scripture seems to indicate Jesus was FULLY HUMAN in every way we are…he had “emptied himself and became a servant”…he set aside his divinity and became one of us. That is the Mystery of the incarnation…God BECAME FULLY HUMAN in the man Jesus of Nazareth.

Much of the early controversies didn’t surround his divinity…but his humanity.

This is not what she said, she is correct in that “person” is used in the philosophical sense and your “fully human” corresponds precisely to the “human nature” part of the “human and divine nature” being present in Christ. His human nature was assumed by His Divinity. These are precise philosophical definitions using the truth which has been handed down to the Church by the Holy Spirit.

CCC503 Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. “He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures.”

 

[benedictus2]

In many ways this is the argument some of the Gnostic sects beleived…Jesus wasn’t really “human”…he only appeared to be.

Scripture seems to indicate Jesus was FULLY HUMAN in every way we are…he had “emptied himself and became a servant”…he set aside his divinity and became one of us. That is the Mystery of the incarnation…God BECAME FULLY HUMAN in the man Jesus of Nazareth.

Much of the early controversies didn’t surround his divinity…but his humanity.

Not really, Arianism was the most serious.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m sure you meant “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.”

That does not sound correct either although that is the way the Lutherans and Anglican’s put it.

The correct rendition is the one in the Catechism:
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

I think the way Anglicans and Lutherans put it sounds like it was the Holy Spirit that became pregnant.

Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In Lukes Gospel, the Angel Gabriel said Mary: You will conceive and bear a son.

 

[benedictus2]

Mary became a mother (there was a time when she was not a mother) **Christ never became **a son (Christ was never “not a son”)

There was a time when she was not Mary’s Son. So yes, Christ did BECOME A SON TO MARY.

We all agree that Mary is the Theotokos, but the imprecise translation of Theotokos to Mother of God causes so much confusion that it requires much explanation.

Only 1600 years later. I don’t think there was such a problem before the protestant deformation.

 

[benedictus2]

I have no problem with Mary being called the “God bearer”, rather than God’s mother. Indeed, she carried the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ in her womb to full term, and gave birth to him. This is an especially unique and most honorable election for the Virgin Mary in bringing God’s anointed into the world.

But is that not exactly what mothers do — carry their children in their womb and bring them into the world?

Does not a mother “bear” her children? Who else bears children but mothers.

So if Mary is God bearer, then May is the Mother of God.

 

[tester]

But is that not exactly what mothers do — carry their children in their womb and bring them into the world?

Does not a mother “bear” her children? Who else bears children but mothers.

So if Mary is God bearer, then May is the Mother of God.

Prior to the medical technique of In Vitro Fertilization there was never a distinction between the child bearer and the genetic/biological mother.
( I am NOT saying the Jesus did not have Mary’s DNA; just pointing out that giving birth may not make a women the mother, but she would definitely be the child bearer)

 

[tester]

I have no problem with Mary being called the “God bearer”, rather than God’s mother. Indeed, she carried the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ in her womb to full term, and gave birth to him. This is an especially unique and most honorable election for the Virgin Mary in bringing God’s anointed into the world.

thank you for seeing my point (even if you may not agree with it);
not all do

 

[Brywan]

Sometimes it amazes me that Christians are still debating something that was definitively settled by our Christian fathers almost 1600 + years ago (by the leading of the Holy Spirit–whom Jesus promised would lead us into ALL the truth. John 16:13)

This is SO basic, and SO fundamental: “Who is Jesus Christ?” If we don’t have it right on that, what kind of foundation do we have for our faith? It kind of alarms me that this is still up for debate,

But I guess the enemy never changes–and if his tactics almost worked before then he can drag out the same ammunition and try it out again…

It seems that we should have different battles to wage in the world of 2010 instead of this one. But evidently we need to go back to square one.

Thank God for the magesterium of the Catholic Church…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Prior to the medical technique of In Vitro Fertilization there was never a distinction between the child bearer and the genetic/biological mother.
( I am NOT saying the Jesus did not have Mary’s DNA; just pointing out that giving birth may not make a women the mother, but she would definitely be the child bearer)

You been “just pointing out” the exact same issue in Three Threads for what Three days now? How about you move on, your not changing Catholic Doctrine, you only seem to be filling some “need” of your own by beating the same drum. What, should we go four threads and continue with this “skip in the record”?

Did a Catholic take you lunch in Grammer School or something? My, my, these feelings you are carrying around for all Catholics is really becoming clearer with each post. My Lord, what did they do to you?

 

[zarthan]

But is that not exactly what mothers do — carry their children in their womb and bring them into the world?

Does not a mother “bear” her children? Who else bears children but mothers.

So if Mary is God bearer, then May is the Mother of God.

Of course a mother bears her child, but Mary is not the mother of the pre-incarnate divine Son of God, she is the mother of the** incarnate ** Son of God. “The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14)…from the Virgin Mary’s womb and by the power of the Holy Spirit. “The gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh.” (Rom.1:3). The motherhood of Mary is all about the Virgin Mary giving natural birth to the human nature of the Son of God, and not giving birth to his pre-incarnate divinity.

Our Heavenly Father is the Father who begat His Son as His only-begotten divine Son. The Virgin Mary did not give birth to the only-begotten divine Son. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”** In the beginning, the Word was not with Mary. **Does this explain the difficulty that I have with the term, ‘mother of God’?

Please understand that there are others who like myself have this difficulty with the phrase. This phrase can not be found in scriptures, this phrase can not be found in the writings of the pre-Nicene church fathers. This phrase was not used, nor necessary for three hundred years of Catholic tradition in explaining the incarnation of the Son of God.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

thank you for seeing my point (even if you may not agree with it);
not all do

Please reply to this post. Thank you!

 

[benedictus2]

Of course a mother bears her child, but Mary is not the mother of the pre-incarnate divine Son of God, she is the mother of the** incarnate ** Son of God.

Sigh. But is that not exactly what we have been saying all this time? Where did we say otherwise? It is really stupid to refute something that another never even claimed.

It is like you telling me "Oh but you are not the Queen of England, when I never claimed to be the Queen of England. It’d downright ill thought.

“The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14)…from the Virgin Mary’s womb and by the power of the Holy Spirit. “The gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh.” (Rom.1:3). The motherhood of Mary is all about the Virgin Mary giving natural birth to the human nature of the Son of God, and not giving birth to his pre-incarnate divinity.

Well no. Mary gave brith to the person of Christ who is both Fully Human and Fully Divine. Mary gave birth to the God-Man. Not just the man, and definitely not the God. The God-Man.

Our Heavenly Father is the Father who begat His Son as His only-begotten divine Son. The Virgin Mary did not give birth to the only-begotten divine Son.

Sorry but she did. She gave birth to Jesus who is the Second Person of the Tirnity. If you do not believe that she gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity then you do not believe Jesus is God.

You cannot separate the two natures of Jesus. His Human Nature and Divine Nature co-exist hypostatically in His Person. Mary gave birth to this PERSON.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”** In the beginning, the Word was not with Mary**. Does this explain the difficulty that I have with the term, ‘mother of God’?

In the beginning was the word and the Word was not with Mary in the beginning. But at a certain point in time, the Word has always been, had a beginning as a Human Being in Mary.

Please understand that there are others who like myself have this difficulty with the phrase.

That you are having a difficulty with this phrase is not because of the phrase but because of your understanding.

That is why I suggest, before you reply, you read VERY CAREFULLY what we have written because what I am writing here now I have written before but you just fail to comprehend.

Or is this a case of NOT WANTING to comprehend?

This phrase can not be found in scriptures, this phrase can not be found in the writings of the pre-Nicene church fathers.

So what does it matter if this phrase was not found in the pre-Nicene Church Fathers? The doctrine of the Trinity was not proclaimed until the Council of Nicea.

What is important is who has the right to make a declaration.

Who should we believe? You, two thousand years later or the council of Christ’s Church one thousand six hundred years ago?

The question is not about time but about authority. Who has the authority? Most certainly not you.

This phrase was not used, nor necessary for three hundred years of Catholic tradition in explaining the incarnation of the Son of God.

So what? For the first 200 years of the Church we did not have a Canon of the Bible? Your point being?

**
By the way, Happy Feast of Mary, Mother of God!

May God be praised. All ages will call her blessed.**

 

[benedictus2]

Prior to the medical technique of In Vitro Fertilization there was never a distinction between the child bearer and the genetic/biological mother.
( I am NOT saying the Jesus did not have Mary’s DNA; just pointing out that giving birth may not make a women the mother, but she would definitely be the child bearer)

Aaah, but those who bear are still the mother. Not just the biological mother. That is just redefining terms.

Same thing with gay. It used to mean happy.

So when people in the 1800s said someone is gay, they meant that someone was happy.

So at the council of Ephesus, when they said God bearer, that meant mother.

 

[benedictus2]

Sometimes it amazes me that Christians are still debating something that was definitively settled by our Christian fathers almost 1600 + years ago (by the leading of the Holy Spirit–whom Jesus promised would lead us into ALL the truth. John 16:13)

So one wonders what powers are behind such belligerent dissent.

Is this a journey from light to darkness or an insistence at remaining in darkness?

 

[zarthan]

The Virgin Mary did not give birth to the second person of the Trinity, God the Father did.
God the Father sent His Son into the womb of the Virgin Mary in order to take on human flesh. “God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom.8:3)

The Virgin Mary participated and gave birth to the humanity of the Son of God. The divinity of the Son of God pre-existed the Virgin Mary, so the Virgin Mary could not be the mother of his divinity, nor give birth to his divinity. God sent His Son into the womb of Mary in the likeness of sinful flesh.

And no, I do not believe that Mary was without sin, otherwise, how could the Son of God be sent in the likeness of sinful flesh? How could the Son of God be tempted in every way as ourselves, yet without sin?

And no, I do not believe that Mary remained a physical virgin while giving birth to Jesus Christ. She was truly a mother with birth pangs, umbilical cord and everything else that occurs in giving birth. Otherwise, how could Mary offter up the necessary sacrifices for the purification of blood as prescribed in Lev.12 and Luke 2:22? Otherwise, how could Mary present Jesus Christ in the temple as the firstborn son, ‘who opens the womb’? as prescribed in the law of Moses and in Luke 2:23-24?

Just as the gates of Sheol were broken, and the stone of Jesus’ grave was removed as being the firstborn from the dead. This Jesus is the one whom ‘God raised up, loosing him from the birthpangs of death.’ (Acts 2:24) Just as Jesus ascended to heaven and was presented to God forty days after being the firstborn from the dead. (Acts 1:3,9; Daniel 7:13) Thus fulfilling the law of Moses in a deeper significance than when Jesus was presented as the firstborn who opened Mary’s womb and was presented in the temple forty days later as prescribed in the law of Moses.

Scripture speaks the truth and always will. Every book of the New Testament was quoted by the pre-Nicene church fathers. Scripture takes precedence over human authority.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

At some point this anti-Catholic bias gets old and it certainly has for me. I wish those remaining the best in dealing with the OP’er and his offensives against the Blessed Virgin.

Our Lady of Fatima:

“There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation.”

 

[benedictus2]

The Virgin Mary did not give birth to the second person of the Trinity, God the Father did.

So you are saying that Jesus is not the Second Person of the Trinity?

So who is Jesus then in relation to the Trinity?

God the Father sent His Son into the womb of the Virgin Mary in order to take on human flesh.

No argument with that. And in the process Mary conceived and bore this Son of the Father.

The Virgin Mary participated and gave birth to the humanity of the Son of God.

If Mary gave birth to the Human Jesus, are you saying the Divine Jesus merged into the Divine Jesus after birth?

The divinity of the Son of God pre-existed the Virgin Mary, so the Virgin Mary could not be the mother of his divinity, nor give birth to his divinity. God sent His Son Zartan surely you cannot be this dense. How many times have we written that Mary is the mother of Jesus the Person. The person has both Human and Divine natures that is not separable.

Have you been reading our responses at all or are you just typing away not reading anything because you just go on and on about the same thing understanding nothing.

And no, I do not believe that Mary was without sin, otherwise, how could the Son of God be sent in the likeness of sinful flesh?

Aaah, so you are saying that Mary was born sinful so Jesus was born sinful as well?

How could the Son of God be tempted in every way as ourselves, yet without sin?

So you think Jesus is WITH SIN?

Maan, that is the first time I have heard a protestant say that. Very strange indeed.

And no, I do not believe that Mary remained a physical

virgin while giving birth to Jesus Christ. She was truly a mother with birth pangs, umbilical cord and everything else that occurs in giving birth. Otherwise, how could Mary offter up the necessary sacrifices for the purification of blood as prescribed in Lev.12 and Luke 2:22? But the sacrifice was not merely for her but for her Son, so you are saying that her Son also needed to be purified because He was sinful.

Scripture speaks the truth and always will. Every book of the New Testament was quoted by the pre-Nicene church fathers. Scripture takes precedence over human authority.

And I suppose Scripture fell from the sky and hit the house of a pre -Nicene father and that is how we ended up with scripture.

You know what, when you acknowledge the authority of Scripture you acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church because it is the Church who came up with the NT and promulgated the Canon.

When you deny the Church’s authority with regards Marian dogmas you in effect deny the inerrancy of Scriptures.

 

[benedictus2]

[sign]**Dear Moderator,

Have pity on us and merge all the three threads about Mary as Mother of God

Thanks!**
[/sign]

 

[zarthan]

So you are saying that Jesus is not the Second Person of the Trinity?

So who is Jesus then in relation to the Trinity?

No argument with that. And in the process Mary conceived and bore this Son of the Father.

If Mary gave birth to the Human Jesus, are you saying the Divine Jesus merged into the Divine Jesus after birth?

The divinity of the Son of God pre-existed the Virgin Mary, so the Virgin Mary could not be the mother of his divinity, nor give birth to his divinity. God sent His Son Zartan surely you cannot be this dense. How many times have we written that Mary is the mother of Jesus the Person. The person has both Human and Divine natures that is not separable.