A
- Status
M
MartinJordan
Guest
But Sam, how did you about Scripture and that Scripture is true the one you are looking for the exact wording? Besides Catholic church is an Apostolic one. Basing the Mother of God through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Plus the Holy Spirit even made Elizabeth tell Mary “…the mother of my Lord”? (Luke 1:41 and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit).
MJ
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
First and FOREMOST…Mother of God is NOT a “divine” title. The title Mother of God in NO WAY awards divinity to nor equates Mary with God. It’s SOLE PURPOSE is to point to the divinity of Christ.
As to what Jesus and the Apostles called Mary…You don’t know that…but I’ll refer you to a scripture that should clear all this up…“THE CHURCH is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH.”
To YOU perhaps the title MOTHER OF GOD implies something entirely different than Theotokos…to me…to the Orthodox…to Catholics…it does NOT. Mary is Jesus Mother…Jesus is GOD from the moment of his conception. To say Mary gave birth to the “human Jesus” is to deny that Jesus’ two natures…divine and human…were (and are) present together without confusion. This is the whole reason Mary was given the title “The Mother of God” because some wanted to deny that Jesus had two natures that coexisted together and without confusion from the moment of his conception…some wanted to say he took on his divine nature at birth…or circumcision…or at his baptism…or after the crucifixion…in other words they wanted to say Jesus BECAME God. No…Jesus IS GOD…from the moment of his conception. That is why the Church found it necessary to call Mary the God-bearer…the Mother of God. Not the mother of human Jesus…the Mother of Jesus who is God…the Mother of God.
S
Sam_777
Guest
Then how to explain what JESUS said in (Mark 13:32) regarding the end of the world hour!
C
ccmcmg
Guest
Huh? Are you saying that Jesus is not fully divine, fully God? I’m just trying to figure out your connection between Mary, Mother of God, and the end of the world…
N
Nicea325
Guest
Easy. Mark 13:32 does not refute Jesus 100% divinity at all.
Philippians 2:7, t Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” While we cannot be certain about all aspects of this “emptying,” it is Christ intentionally and temporarily laid aside certain elements of His power when He took on human form. We can see this all throughout the Gospels as Christ was constantly depending upon His Father, and yet was doing everything the Father did and in the same manner (e.g., John 5:19 & 30).
While this verse teaches the limited knowledge of the Son during His earthly ministry, it does not follow that His knowledge remains limited now. If the Bible taught that Jesus continues to lack knowledge after His resurrection, there might be grounds for concluding that He is not equal to His Father. But this is not the case. In Revelation 22:12-13, we find that the Son does know the hour of His return: “Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”
Further, Paul teaches us that in Christ are hidden “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). If Christ now has all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, there is no knowledge that He lacks.
The real thrust of this verse, of course, is not to diminish the Son in respect to His Father. In Mark 13:31, Jesus proclaims that His words will never pass away - placing His authority on equal footing with His Father.
B
believerdoc
Guest
Here I must disagree again. It in no way denies that Jesus was truly human and truly God. It simply recognizes the Incarnation. The divine nature of God was not created by Mary. We recognize that Jesus was God from the moment of His conception in Mary’s womb but this was through nothing that the Blessed Virgin did. God Bearer fits perfectly but to say that Mary was the Mother of God does not for Protestants. I totally understand the historical reasons the title was give to Mary but I feel it is confusing and is not accurately. I would agree with your statement the “Mother of Jesus who is God” but that is not the same as the Mother of God.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Again, Theotokos does not mean “God-Bearer.” It means, “One Who Gives Birth to God,” i.e. "Mother of God. The title might not sound agreeable to you, but first tell us what the definition of “mother” is.
Well, not all protestants, if we Lutherans are to be counted as protestant.
From the Lutheran Confessions (again):
**On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. **
Jon
E
eddie_too
Guest
Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
Mary DID NOT give birth to a human person but to a Divine Person who has two natures.
Jesus is not a human “person” in the sense that one’s personhood is what gives them existence.
Jesus human nature was given existence by Mary. His divine nature was not given existence by Mary.
Mary gave birth to the Person, Jesus Christ.
Jesus was conceived with two natures but is only One Person.
Mary gave birth to only one person and that Person is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
mother’s give birth to their children. each woman who gives birth is the mother of the child she births.
it is a gross error to base one’s thinking on the idea that Jesus is two persons. it is also a gross error to base one’s thinking on the idea that Jesus has only one nature.
Mary DID NOT give birth to a human person but to a Divine Person who has two natures.
Jesus is not a human “person” in the sense that one’s personhood is what gives them existence.
Jesus human nature was given existence by Mary. His divine nature was not given existence by Mary.
Mary gave birth to the Person, Jesus Christ.
Jesus was conceived with two natures but is only One Person.
Mary gave birth to only one person and that Person is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
mother’s give birth to their children. each woman who gives birth is the mother of the child she births.
it is a gross error to base one’s thinking on the idea that Jesus is two persons. it is also a gross error to base one’s thinking on the idea that Jesus has only one nature.
E
eddie_too
Guest
islam teaches that Jesus was NOT the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
You’re wrong in this regard…it is Mary’s assent…her “yes” that was necessary for the incarnation. Jesus is God…Mary is his mother…how do you get around that unless you divide Jesus…which is heresy.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
The term “God-bearer” or “Birth-Giver of God” are considered literal translations…Mother of God less so. My friend Father Peter, an OCA Priest, would always say it was God-bearer. But we are splitting hairs…they all mean approximately the same.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
The most basic definition of “mother” would be a woman who gives birth to a child. A mother could give birth and have her child die right after, but she would still be considered a mother of that child. Mother is a good translation of “tokos” in this context. God-Bearer, on the other hand, is a poor translation because it sounds like the Virgin Mary is called Theotokos because she carried God around with her, which is not what it means. The Latin “Genetrix” is an even closer translation than “Mother,” but “Begetter of God” sounds ridiculous in English, and it is synonymous with “Mother of God” anyway.
M
maryj
Guest
church history shows that Mary’s title of Mother of God was not rejected until 429. Nestorius promoted the heresy that Jesus is two distinct persons and that Mary is the mother of the human person only. In 431, the council of Ephesus CONDEMNED this heresy. It did not surface again in Christianity until after the reformation.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (180-199) " The Virgin Mary,…being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God"
Against heresies, 5,19,1;Jurgens, Vol !,#256a.
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel,” (which means God with us) Matt 1:23
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Ummm … that’s not a proper characterization.
“Mother of God” is not a “divine title.”
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Mary gave birth to a person. Jesus.
She didn’t just give birth to Jesus’ humanity.
When Elizabeth called her “the Mother of my Lord”, was Elizabeth implying that her Lord is just a human person?
M
MartinJordan
Guest
S
Sam_777
Guest
What if Elizabeth said “Lord” as a sign of respect not “LORD” as of GOD !
- Status