No women is the mother of God. God has no mother. God has no father. God was not conceived by a mother and father, nor was God ever birthed!
MARY THE MOTHER of GOD
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Trying2DoRight, Jan 18, 2014.
Page 1 of 4
-
-
padredurand Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Second, do you know what a syllogism is? Let me try one out on you.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
Of course if you don't believe in the Holy Trinity, then it would be easy to conclude that Mary is not the mother of God.
Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? -
Mary is not the mother of God.
I believe in the living God, Jesus the Son of living God and the Holy Ghost. I assume this is what you are referring too as the Holy Trinity. -
Syllogism it is.
Mary taught Jesus to speak.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary taught God to speak.
Therefore, Mary taught God to walk.
Therefore, Mary taught God to eat politely.
Therefore, Mary taught God to read.
Therefore, Mary taught God His name.
Joseph was head of his family.
Jesus was a child in Joseph's family
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Joseph is the head of God.
Joseph was to protect his family.
Jesus was a child in Joseph's family
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Joseph is the protector of God.
Joseph was stronger than the children in his family
Jesus was a child in Joseph's family
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Joseph was stronger than God.
The blasphemy with this line of syllogism is endless. I am surprised that people stop at just a few of them (like co-redemptrix and mother of God) once they choose such a short-sighted path.
The "excuse" to do it is that "people will not believe in the Trinity if we do not ADD these blasphemous titles to the text" as "if" the Bible texts that speak to the divinity of Christ "are not enough" and we must add man-made ideas to it - so people will believe in the triune Godhead of the Bible.
=====
So it is "instructive" that the Bible does not use even ONE of those titles for Mary or for Joseph.
in Christ,
Bob -
Mary was the mother of the human called Jesus Christ,
IMO, whose spirit was filled with the Word, i.e. God.
Hence, Jesus Christ was the God-man.
Jesus Christ did not sin ... He was sinless!
But, did Jesus have man's inherited sin nature?
Or, did He overcome temptations to sin (like we are asked to do)?
Don't forget that one of the many reasons the Word came to live on the earth
was to demonstrate how we are supposed to live!
Which is to receive the Holy Spirit and then just praise God for all eternity! Sorry, Rolf is worn out again!
I used to believe that man's sin nature was passed down either through the blood or man's sperm.
However, a lady doctor in the UK told me that DNA from both mother and father is passed down to the baby.
So, through a normal conception, Jesus would have Mary's DNA.
But, is man's sin nature contained in his/her DNA?
Some insist that it's only spiritual.
Scripture says Mary's conception carried to full term.
But, Mary did not really have a normal conception for the father was the Holy Spirit.
Part of the Holy Spirit's miracle might have been to alter Mary's DNA.
So, where are we now? ... I dunno and anyway I'm tired of ramblin'.
And they all cried, "PTL", in unison.
. -
Mother of God? No. Mother of Jesus? Yes. Mary was the earthly vessel used to incarnate God into this world. She is the mother of the 100% human aspect of Jesus. She is not the mother of the 100% God aspect of Jesus.
Jesus, in a form we can't fully comprehend was 100% God and 100% man. Therefore He was both eternal and conceived of God in Mary. It's a duality that we can't comprehend fully, and can only explain with analogies that fall short of truth.
Short answer; Mary was the mother of Jesus, but not God. -
Most of the views expressed here sound of the ancient heresy Nestorianism. Nestorious was Archbishop of Constantinople early in the 5th Century, and he advocated that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ. Rather, he tried to separate Christ into two persons contained within the same body—one with a human nature and the other with a divine nature. Because of the growth of this heresy, a church council was called to address it and deal with it. This was the Council of Ephesus in 431. Among other things that come out of this council was this confession concerning the nature of Christ and, a fortiori, the nature and role of Mary:
-
Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus," Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord." In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos). (CCC 495)
Mary is the Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ, her Son, is God. And when Mary gave birth, she did not give birth to a nature, or even two natures; she gave birth to one, divine Person. To deny this essential truth of the faith, as the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) declared, is to cut oneself off from full communion with Christ and his Church. -
So it is said almost non-stop by those who believe she is the 'Mother of God' - but is not ever said in the Bible by the NT saints that actually knew Mary.
That has to be a little "instructive".
So then why do we not use such misleading titles all over the place?
Possibly because we do not want to mislead.
in Christ,
Bob -
But the point remains because that method proves nothing.
When a mother gives birth to a new person it is creation act of the PERSON in birth. The PERSON begins to exist at that moment.
But God the Son - the PERSON - was not created 2000 years ago rather he was INCARNATED - so a pre-existing person with no Mother was INCARNATED not "created" 2000 years ago.
But using the same term for normal human "creation" where the birth is the start or the creation of a PERSON - for the INCARNATION case of God the Son - a false view is created that Mary created GOD. That God derived his existence from Mary and was not in fact pre-existent.
No wonder not ONE Bible writer, not ONE NT saint uses that term for Mary -- no not even once is she called 'The Mother of God'.
By carefully ignoring the difference between the two the title "Mother of God" is used. The result is a lot of praying to the dead as if Mary is a better source than Christ for getting mediation, intercession, help.
This is a natural consequence to the "Mother of God" misdirection.
in Christ,
Bob -
What all the squabbling represents is reality: the reality that we are all sinners and fall short of Christ’s example to us and we are mortal, seeing with eyes and hearing with ears that cannot grasp the fullness of God’s expression to us in revelation.
In one sense it is confirmation that better things lie ahead. -
-
The fact that the term "Mother of God' is never used in scripture - is not an argument in its favor.
The fact that "stronger than God" -- "Wiser than God" ... "The head of God" .. the "teacher of God" is never used in scripture for the parents of Jesus - is pretty obvious -- even to Catholics.
in Christ,
Bob -
The Messiah was to be the Son of David and sit on David's throne - that alone would justify the title "The Mother of my Lord".
Walter said: ↑Thanks for your response, Bob. It has been a while since I participated on any of the 'bash the RC threads'.Click to expand...
However pointed questions about doctrines and tradition are always instructive - no matter who is answering as long as "The details" are kept in focus and not just endless rant and name calling.
What all the squabbling represents is reality: the reality that we are all sinners and fall short of Christ’s example to us and we are mortal, seeing with eyes and hearing with ears that cannot grasp the fullness of God’s expression to us in revelation.
In one sense it is confirmation that better things lie ahead.Click to expand...
in Christ,
Bob -
Walter said: ↑Mary is the Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ, her Son, is God.
And when Mary gave birth, she did not give birth to a nature, or even two natures;
she gave birth to one, divine Person.
To deny this essential truth of the faith, as the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) declared,
is to cut oneself off from full communion with Christ and his Church.Click to expand...
But, duz I have to agree with those boys who met there in 431?
No IMO, it is wiser to believe in the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
IMO, it all depends on exactly what is meant by this ...
Mary gave birth to one, divine Person.
IMO, Mary gave birth to a human fetus who had the Word (i.e. God) therein, within, etc.
I.E. How can God be seen as a human fetus?
Have I been excommunicated yet, or duz I need to wait awhile?
. -
If Jesus of Nazareth was not God Incarnate from the moment of his conception, exactly when did he become God Incarnate?
-
Doubting Thomas said: ↑If Jesus of Nazareth was not God Incarnate from the moment of his conception, exactly when did he become God Incarnate?Click to expand...
-
Doubting Thomas said: ↑If Jesus of Nazareth was not God Incarnate from the moment of his conception, exactly when did he become God Incarnate?Click to expand...
God the Son - the person - had no start, no beginning, no Mother.
Jesus was already God the Son from eternity past. He made Mary through the work that He does in "creating all things and sustaining all things".
Mary did not give God the Son his start in life - HE gave HER her start in life.
in Christ,
Bob
Page 1 of 4