1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mary, Mother of God. What do you think.

Discussion in 'Polls Forum' started by Bunyon, Dec 1, 2005.

?

Mary, Mother of God. What do you think?

  1. Yes

    28 vote(s)
    100.0%

  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Given the history of this title and its contemporary maning, is this an appropriate title to use for Mary?
     
    #1 Bunyon, Dec 1, 2005
  2. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Spelling, that should read, "its contemporary meaning,".
     
    #2 Bunyon, Dec 1, 2005
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I'm not quite sure what you're asking in your question. If you're asking "Do you agree with the statement that Mary is the mother of God?" then I would have to say that, since Jesus was and is God and since Mary carried Him in her womb and gave birth to Him (which, last time I looked, fits the definition of 'mother'), then I would have to say 'yes'. That's not to say I'm not unhappy about the way that logic has been extrapolated in certain Church quarters over the centuries...
     
    #3 Matt Black, Dec 1, 2005
  4. billreber

    billreber New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ditto to Matt's comment. Mary was DEFINITELY and biblically the mother of Jesus, but certain groups have atempted to deify her.

    Bill
     
    #4 billreber, Dec 1, 2005
  5. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mary had a definite time and date of birth, and a definite time and date of death (doesn't matter we don't know them). Meaning she had a beginning and end.
    God has always existed. No beginning, no end.
    Jesus is God.
    Mary bore His fleshly body. Nothing more.
    Since God had no beginning, then He could not have a mother.
    Jesus exsisted before the foundation of the world, has always exsisted, never a time when HE did not exsist.
    He, Himself, as diety, a preexsisting being, does not have nor need a mother.
    But His flesh He came to earth as did.
    So Mary was the mother of the man named Jesus(flesh), but not God(the preexsisting beinging).
     
    #5 donnA, Dec 1, 2005
  6. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Unfortunately, that denies the deity of Christ, Who was fully man and fully God.
     
    #6 Matt Black, Dec 1, 2005
  7. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    "I'm not quite sure what you're asking in your question."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I am just asking if, given the prevailing meaning of the title NOW, do you consider it appropritate. (Assuming that that post Constintine council we dicussed should even be viewed as authroitative)

    I would never describe my happy male friends as "gay", for obvious reasons, even though I may have 60 years ago. Assuming the title ever had an appropriate meaning, does its current meaning make it appropriate for use as Mary's title.

    I wonder, why should Mary have any titles at all?

    "Unfortunately, that denies the deity of Christ, Who was fully man and fully God"---------------------------------------------------------------

    If this is true, than our protestant fathers and our Bible also denie the diety of Christ because they also refrained from any such title.
     
    #7 Bunyon, Dec 1, 2005
  8. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Refraining from the title is one thing and, I think, given its misuse (IMHO of course!) in certain ecclesial quarters, is perhaps to be encouraged. But I don't think any of the Reformation fathers (at least not those of the Magisterial persuasion such as Luther and Calvin) ever went so far as to deny the Definition of Chalcedon; quite the contrary - they affirmed most of the ECFs and the early ecumenical councils.
     
    #8 Matt Black, Dec 1, 2005
  9. Vasco

    Vasco New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is like asking can God create a rock so big He Himself can't move it. This is when you must refer to your faith. Christ was man and God.
     
    #9 Vasco, Dec 1, 2005
  10. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Matt, I don't mean the very first refomers. They were just the beginning. Luther had lots fo things wrong, but he got alot right and got the ball rolling. I mean as the movement got legs under it, you find all titles for Mary cast aside and forgotten and left unused, intentionally, I think.

    "Christ was man and God."---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course we all agree with that, Vasco, this is not in question.
     
    #10 Bunyon, Dec 1, 2005
  11. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you think is its "contemporary meaning"? What do you think is its "history"?
     
    #11 natters, Dec 1, 2005
  12. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Bunyon, was Mary the mother of Christ?
     
    #12 Matt Black, Dec 1, 2005
  13. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the man named Jesus(flesh) is God(the preexisting being). They are not separate.
     
    #13 natters, Dec 1, 2005
  14. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Matt, Natter, no disrespect, I am going to try and refrain from debating on this one as there is anohter thread where it is being debated. I just wanted some raw data on how folks think about it NOW. I understand where you are comming from, but all things considered, I will stay away from the title.

    But to answer you Natters. Based on what Ransom and other have told me, I think the title had some orthodox understanding in days gone by, although I find any post Constantine council to be suspect. But I think its meaning in the last 1000 or so years has been something else entirly.
     
    #14 Bunyon, Dec 1, 2005
  15. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    And so again I ask you, what do you think is its contemporary meaning? You keep mentioning the "prevailing meaning now", but I don't recall you ever explaining what that meaning actually is.
     
    #15 natters, Dec 1, 2005
  16. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    But the man named Jesus(flesh) is God(the preexisting being). They are not separate. </font>[/QUOTE]Indeed. Hence my earlier post.
     
    #16 Matt Black, Dec 1, 2005
  17. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    It does no such thing, to say God has no beginning, while Mary did, if Mary had a beginning yet gave birth to God Himself, what does that say about God? It limits God to being a created being, with a beginning and without doubt a an end.
    That denies the exsistance of God as God.
     
    #17 donnA, Dec 1, 2005
  18. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the man named Jesus(flesh) is God(the preexisting being). They are not separate. </font>[/QUOTE]I never said they were.
    Mary gave birth to flesh, before then Jesus was not in the flesh. Yet He exsisted anyway. If HE exsisted before Mary, (as scripture says before the foundation of the world) then how can anyone be the mother of God?
     
    #18 donnA, Dec 1, 2005
  19. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    donnA, it really depends on what your definition of 'mother' is, then. IMO, person A who gives birth to person B is mother to person B. Since Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was His mother, and since he was also fully God, then she was mother of God.
     
    #19 Matt Black, Dec 1, 2005
  20. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Mary is not the mother of God. Mary is the mother of God the Son's Earthly incarnation.
     
    #20 Mike McK, Dec 1, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...