Does God have a Mother?

It is a good question to think about.
</font>[/QUOTE]It is the crux of the issue.

 

Mary is not "God's Mother" and Joseph is not "God's teacher".

This concept is very hard for some people.

God has no beginning-He is all knowing, and He is all powerful. Hint: God the Son was not PROCREATED He was INCARNATED. So it is no surprise that Bible writers never engage in the heresy of using procreation terms when speaking of the Christ. For example they NEVER say "Mary is the Mother of God" NOR do they ever say "Joseph is the teacher of God". That mistake is NEVER made by Bible writers!

Why do you suppose that they NEVER use such terms for Mary and Joseph regarding God the Son? Is it because Bible writers are protected from such errors by God and the principle of inspiration?

What say you?

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 13, 2005, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Bob, I think it's perfectly permissible to refer to Mary as the Mother of God, so long as it is clearly understood that it is God the Son that she is the mother of.

I think the bigger issue aroung the use of this phrase lies with a romaphobic fear. It's a common term in Catholicism, and since we don't want to be "mistaken" for being Catholic sympathizers, we aschew the term more for manmade reasons than sriptural ones.

 

I suppose we could "call the Bible writers - "Romaphobic" for not embracing the error of calling Joseph "The TEACHER OF GOD" and NEVER calling Mary the "MOTHER OF GOD".

I wouldn't - but I think some might go to such extremes to promote the view the Bible writers NEVER endorse.

Not uncoincidentally - the Bible writers ALSO never pray to Mary, never worship at her altars - etc.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I wasn't referring to the bible writers. It's clear that they refer to both Mary and Joseph as Jesus' mother and father without reservation.

Jesus is God the Son, and he has a biological mother, and a nonbiological father. If that makes me sound "too catholic" for some, then so be it.

 

Scripture says the Word was God. Scripture says the Word became flesh. Scripture says Jesus is the Word. Scripture says Jesus' "mother" is Mary. Connect the dots.

Scripture does not say Mary was the origin of Jesus's divinity. Neither do the people that originated the term "Mother of God", nor the people that use it today.

 

A LOT of people refer to Mary as "Jesus' Mother".

That is not the topic here.

The point of the subject is the heresy promoted about Mary as the MOTHER of God and correspondinly - Joseph as the TEACHER OF GOD -- (not to mention all the BROTHER's of God, Uncles of God, Grandparents of God, ...)

These are common terms the BIBLE WRITERS never use when speaking of Christ - because it only serves to propagate the "altars of Mary" and "prayers to Mary" -- rather than exalting God the Son!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The writers don's use these terms because they refer to him by name: Jeshua (Jesus)

 

Sure it is. Is Jesus God?

What exactly is the heresy you see in the term?

 

The Bible writers NEVER commit the Heresy of using PROCREATION terms for God the Son since he was INCARNATED not PROCREATED. see?

So while ALL Christian groups (and some not quite) say that Mary is the Mother of Jesus -- NOT EVEN the BIBLE WRITERS call Mary "the Mother of God"!!

See?

And they also do not call Joseph "The TEACHER of GOD" or "God's TEACHER".

See?

In Christ,

Bob

 

To call Joseph the "Teacher of GOD" is to exault Joseph (perhaps start some worshipping at HIS altars) and to diminish the concept of God -- at the same time!

The same goes for Mary as the Mother of God (terms NEVER used by Bible writers)

 

The Bible writers called Mary his "mother". He is God. "mother" does not necessarily mean procreator. The heresy is not in the term, but in a particular meaning that nobody means when they use the term.

Questions for you:

Is Mary Jesus's "mother"? Yes or no.

Did Jesus exist before his conception in Mary's womb? Yes or no.

 

I DID post that already - right?

 

Hmmm "Not even the BIBLE WRITERS" will call Mary The Mother of God" while ALL (including Bible writers) call Mary "The Mother of Jesus".

Mary Mother of Jesus -- is not equivalent to "Mary Mother of God" as every JW and Mormon clearly proves!

The REASON that Mary "Mother of God" and Joseph "TEACHER OF GOD" is never used -- is that this terminology merely exaults man while diminishing God to some tiny god -- resulting in "worship at Joseph's altars", Mary's altars, Mary "all powerful like God" etc.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, but you're proving the very point that you're arguing against. If Mary is the "Mother of Jesus", yet Jesus existed before his conception in Mary's womb, then why isn't "Mother of Jesus" heresy for using "procreation terms" if Jesus was "incarnated, not procreated"?

SEE?

 

Jesus did not "exist" - God the SON did. Jesus is the INCARNATED form of God the Son. God the Son TAKES ON the human form - and becomes Jesus.

Every Mormon and JW that freely admits that "Mary is the Mother of Jesus" is SHOWING that this alone does NOT equate to "Mother of GOD".

so it IS signficant that everyone who things Mary really IS THE MOTHER OF GOD - is so quick to SAY IT!!

And so significant then that the Bible writers NEVER do!

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Jesus" is a name, and it was not given until after the child was born (Matt 1:25, Luke 2:21). So who was it that was in Mary's womb between conception and birth, if it wasn't "God the SON", and it wasn't "Jesus"?

Do you believe Jesus's flesh is divine (God)?

 

Johnv-"I think the bigger issue aroung the use of this phrase lies with a romaphobic fear. It's a common term in Catholicism, and since we don't want to be "mistaken" for being Catholic sympathizers, we aschew the term more for manmade reasons than sriptural ones. "------------------------------------------------------------

Well thanks, JohnV, for writing off my opinion as Romaphobea. I think I articulated my position well and the weakness in theirs, but go ahead, just write it off.

Just because we have 1500 or so years of Catholic history to back up our reasons for eschewing the term, does not mean we don't have sound reasons. There justification for calling Mary mother of God relies on folks agreeing to take a limited view of motherhood, which folks don't do naturally. So why force something that is not natural just because you can employee limited terms and force a logical conclusion, a conclusion that only holds if you agree to limit the term mother. We don't agree to limit the term mother, so the logic does not work.

Now go back and read my post and tell me if it is nothing more than Romaphopea.

 

It amazes me that some think that Jesus Christ was not 100% God and 100% man prior to Mary giving birth to Him. Throughout the Bible when the phrase "The Angel of God" (not to be confused with ("AN angel of God") is rendered, it pertains to Deity. The Angel of God visited Abraham...and wrestled with Jacob. The phrase was in regards to Jesus, as God the Father and the Holy Spirit are Spirit. Mary was not around during the OT, therefore, she could not be God the Son's mother...only a human vessel for God the Son's earthly body which tasted death on our behalf. Jesus' resurrected body (the body He had prior to being conceived by Mary) could not die.

 

Why do you believe these OT apperances were in a "human" body and not some kind of angelic body?

Why is Mary called Jesus "mother" in scripture (in the main narrative, not just when quoting others)?

Do you believe Jesus flesh, the flesh that Mary gave birth to, was devine (God)?