Is this blasphemous enough for you?

Depends what you mean by 'Mother'. Theotokos literally translates as, not 'Mother of God' but, 'God-Bearer'; in old English it would be 'God's Damm' but, for obvious reasons, the Church doesn't use that.

 

It's funny that people will call her the Queen of Heaven and make graven images of her that exalt her, but then say they haven't made an idol of her and don't worship her. It's called double talk. Mary isn't the queen of heaven, she wasn't sinless, she isn't the mother of God. Mary was a very godly woman who was chosen by God to bear the human body of the Lord Jesus Christ. She was a sinner just like us, and just like us she was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ at Calvary. She is right now part of the innumerable multitude in heaven praising Christ for salvation.

 

First, "Theotokos" is never used in Scriptures so why use it? Second, If it does not mean "Mother of God," why would this title be given to Mary?
Third, even if used as an explanation, and giving the ECFs the benefit of the doubt, that they only used it as a way to explain that Jesus was God even though Mary was human (how do we know if this is what they meant?). We should never use this Title because it has far exceded this meaning through the centuries with the RCC exalting Mary to Godhood as we see by these pictures given in the OP, as well as other titles such as "co-Redeemer," "Queen of Heaven," etc. As well as, Mary being a central figure of adoration (worship) and prayers, that the Scriptures ONLY attribute to God alone.
Forth, According to Scripture this is Blasphemy. And let me say, this is not to put down Mary. She is "Blessed among women" (notice the word among, it does not say above). But the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of RCC are not the same. I cannot find the RCC Mary in the Bible. They (RCC) have used her name to teach all manner of false teaching and should be Rebuked for doing doing so. Their is only ONE God and ONE Mediator and One Redeemer. Mary can never be exalted as she has been. She was a humble, godly young virgin who God used, yes, and because of this she is said to be blessed among women, yes, but we cannot attribute any more then this to her and to do otherwise is to distract from our ONE TRUE WORSHIP, of our ONE TRUE GOD. Anything else is Blasphemy (withno disrespect to the true Mary of the Bible).

 

You are a living illustration why ancient Baptists were slandered by such epitaphs. When they simply denied that Mary was the Mother of God they were accused of being Arians or Nestorianism. When they denied the Roman Catholic view of communion they were charged with not believing and practicing communion, and charged as Arians because they did not believe the actual blood and body of Christ was in it, etc.

Do you beleive that in the incarnation a new kind of God originated? A God unlike the God which previously existed before the incarnation??

 

Why capitalize "Mother"??? Do you believe that a new God was brought into existence in the incarnation through Mary than the God Who preexisted the incarnation?

 

Please point out where the Word of God in the Greek New Testament ever uses such a word ("Theotokos") for Mary?

Please point out where the Word of God ever attributes to Mary the birth of "God" or that she birthed "God"?

John makes a clear distinction between the prexistent Logos and what Logos tabernacled within due to the incarnation. Paul says that He "took upon" himself the human nature and the writer of Hebrews says that God prepared him "a body."

So you deny any distinction between the Divine and human nature within the Person of Jesus IN REGARD TRIGIN??

Did God originate from Mary's womb? Did the human body originate previous to the existence of Mary? If the origin of the Divine Logos preexisted Mary then what originated in the womb of Mary? God? or the human nature of Jesus?

 

So are you Eutychianistic in your beliefs??? I don't deny the hypostatic union between the divine and human nature but neither do I confound them in regard to ORIGIN and the epitaph "Mother of God" attributed to Mary confounds them in the point of origin. Rome capitalizes "Mother" just as they do God The "Father" and therefore place her on the same level in regard to ORIGIN. The only thing that originated with Mary is the human nature. She mothered the HUMANITY of Jesus but not his Deity.

The normal use of "mother" and "father" in regard to birth is procreation of the nature. Rome is perverting the normal use of "mother" in regard to child birth to support this blasphemous heresy.

 

The problem is people try to overly simplify God. Their logic runs like this: Jesus is God, Mary is the mother of Jesus, therefore Mary is the mother of God. To do this one must completely destroy the words of Paul who said, "and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." The incarnation of Jesus is a great mystery. Here we have God, the eternal Word, creator of the universe, who is from everlasting to everlasting, the Alpha and Omega. We have this God becoming flesh, and the fullness of the godhead dwelling in Him bodily. That, my friends, is a great mystery. That is something no human being can fully comprehend. God taking upon Himself a human body, subject to infirmity, and being henceforth fully God and fully man. In taking upon Himself humanity, He goes through the normal progression of life. He is conceived, albeit by the Holy Ghost, in the womb of a woman. He grows, He is born, He feeds off the paps of His mother and is weaned. He is a little kid, then a teenager, then a young man, and finally a fully grown man. He dies. That is all incredible. This is God. This God once told a man who was standing right before Him outside the city of Jerusalem that He was presently in heaven and standing right there in that spot at the same time. Truly, great is the mystery of godliness.

Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. However, to simply follow the trail and conclude Mary is the mother of God is to discount in totality the great mystery of the incarnation. The Word existed prior to that event.

 

And how is that different from what you say about people who disagree with you?

Of course not. "Before Abraham was born, I am." But we still must recognize that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. For the first time, man could look God in the eye and touch Him.

Do you believe Jesus had Mary's DNA?

 

Of course not. I believe in two natures of Christ but without separation or division.

Wow! that’s all I can think of here. Do you actually believe the capitalization of “Mother” means Rome is placing her on the same level as God? You remind me of an uncle who used to come up with theories like that all the time. He was one of those people who believed man never really went to the moon. He was brilliant for his limited education but he had a really sick and twisted system of reasoning and drawing conclusions from said reasoning.

You and I have two components—physical (body) and spiritual (soul). Do you refer to your mother as the mother of your body? Of course not. She is the mother of your whole being, body and soul. So it is with Mary.

Mary was the mother of a child, born in the usual manner. The child was conceived, not of a man, but of the power of the Holy Spirit. That is all the Catholic Church teaches about the birth of Christ (not all they teach about Mary of course).

Incidentally, your use of “blasphemous heresy” here is what I had in mind when I asked in my previous post how your accusation of name calling differs from what you do.

 

Wrong Jesus said I came down from Heaven. Mary did not impart Jesus with a soul. He was on the throne and came down from Heaven.

 

Did your mother impart you with a soul? Probably not, but you were born with a soul. Yet you don't refer to your mother as "mother of my body." She is the mother of your whole being. So why would we refer to Mary as only the mother of Christ's humanity? No one, not even Catholics, suggest that Mary gave Jesus his devine nature. You're making allegations that just aren't true and if you really thought about it you would realize that.

 

Do you subscribe to the Chalcedonian Creed?

I'm sure you will hang up on the mother of God thing, but other than that what do you think of it?

 

The way you compare Jesus birth to a natural birth is where you blow it in your analogy.

 

I don't think so but if you care to elaborate I will consider it.

 

But we are not talking about "separation or division"! We are talking about distinction and origin! Do you deny there is a distinction between the human and divine nature in Christ and do you deny there is a distiinction between the human and divine nature as to origin?

I should have also pointed out that EVERY descriptive title given to Mary by Rome is capitalized and most descriptions given her overlap with the same descriptions and/or attributes given to various members of the Godhead.

493....The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (quoted with approval)

966....as Queen over ALL THINGS... (emphasis mine)

969....Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix

Every single title above is equally applied to God other than the femine gender.

I have two HUMAN components but that is not true of Christ. He not only has both HUMAN components but in addition He has the DIVINE nature. The human reproduction principle is "after its kind" and the human reproductive system can only provide a human nature and that is all that can be derived from Mary as a "mother." She cannot impart what she is not! However, the designation "Mother of God" conveys that she procreated God's nature rather than just human nature.

Do you believe that Mary had Divine DNA in addition to human DNA? If not, then how can she "mother" what she cannot reproduce?

She is the mother of Jesus as there was no Jesus before the incarnation but there was God the Son before the incarnation.

Now, I get your point that the child born to Mary was God in the flesh but there is good reason why the Scriptures do not attribute to Mary to be the mother of God but merely the mother of Jesus as she could not be the Mother of God in any procreative sense. All she could mother in a procreative sense is the humanity of Jesus as without a human mother there could be no human nature and yet there would still be God.

 

1. This is not an argument over the separation and division of the human from the divine nature but rather over the distinction and origin of the human versus the divine nature.

2. The divine nature of Christ has no point of origin with time or creatures such as Mary (Jn. 1:1-3, 14,18; Phillip. 2:6; Heb. 10:6; etc.).

3. The human nature of Christ has no existence before Mary and therefore Mary must be the only source of the human nature.

4. Mary is of the human kind which can only reproduce after its own kind.

5. All the offices and titles given to Mary by the Roman Church are never found in the scriptures because the scriptures give these titles and offices to only members of the Godhead (excepting the femine gender).

6. Therefore with good reason the Scriptures never attribut to Mary to be the mother of "God" as that would infer Mary's fitness for such offices and titles given only to a Divine Person or member of the Godhead.

7. The title of "Helper" and "Advocate" is given to the Second and Third Person's of the Godhead

8. The title and description "Queen OVER ALL THINGS" is given to the First Person of the Godhead except in the masculine form.

9. The title and office of Redemptrix is given exclusively to the Second Person of the Godhead except in masculine form.

10. The title of "All-Holy" is exclusively the description of God alone distinct from creatures

11. The office of "Benefactress" is pecularily the description given to God alone ("Lk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.") It is equal to "Lord". The description of Mary's office as Benefactoress requires omniscience and omnipotence as she hears and answers all the prayers by all the saints who address worldwide.

12. Devotion to Mary is "intrinsic to Christian worship" (971 Catholic Catechism).


Any objectiver person who is not lost and blinded can easily see that Mary is painted in all the terminology and offices and attributes that are given in the Scriptures to only God.