Mary the mother of God?

[TexasSky]

I tend to believe all scripture is God given, ergo when the bible calls her his mother, I accept that as from God.

My post does imply Christ said the word mother, and you are correct in stating the quote is not in scripture.

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 2:34 - And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and fora sign which shall be spoken against."

Acts 1:14 - These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.


Luke 1:43 - And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


Luke 2:43 - And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

Luke 2:51 - And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

 

[TexasSky]

Let me ask you something - since you are slicing Christ into "parts" that are "holy" and "unholy" - which part preached on the Mountain top? Which part prayed in the garden?
Apparently you do not believe that the divine Messiah was tempted in the wilderness or that He went to the cross.

So, given that - was all that teaching and preaching done by Him just the words of an unholy man?

You cannot divide Christ.
To do so is absolutle blaspheme.

The bible teaches that the child, Jesus Christ, born in Bethlehem, who fled to Egypt and who grew up in Nazareth - was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin Mary. He was as much the child of God and the child of man at conception as I am the child of two earthly parents.

Don't deny scripture becuase you don't want to acknowledge the truth.

 

[TexasSky]

Artimaeus said:

Not one single atom of what Mary gave birth to was, is, or will be God. Mary gave birth to a physical vessel used by God.

So when the bible says the Holy Ghost conceived the child you disagree? Or you have a different definition of conception?

 

[natters]

Originally posted by webdog:
Mary was fully the mother of Jesus, who while 100% God, was also 100% human.
...
This would have Mary being "fully" the mother of God, which is blasphemy.

I added bold to the quote above. I hope it illustrates why I don't really understand your argument, let alone am convinced by it. If Mary is "fully" the mother of Jesus (as you've admitted), and Jesus is 100% God (as you've also admitted), then why is Mary being "fully" the mother of God blasphemy?

 

[TexasSky]

I second Natters question.

 

[HankD]

The biggest problem with the title the "Mother of God" is the excesses to which it has led.

In the Church of Rome, Mary over the years has been exalted with several other titles:

Mary as the:

Co-redemptrix with Christ.

Mediatrix of all God's graces (awaiting papal approval, but a common title in contemporary Catholicism.

The Advocate or Advocatrix of God.

From http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/
found online in the public domain.

Summary of Correct Doctrine

Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, Mediator, Advocate. Christ is assisted by the Virgin Mary in her triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. The following 12 points are an important part of a correct understanding of this doctrine.

1. Mary’s triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix is a reflection of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

HankD

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Under this premise, you would have mary being "fully" the mother of Christ,

As opposed to being half his mother?

Motherhood is an all-or-nothing deal. You either are, or you aren't; no in-between.

and under your theory, Jesus being "fully" God.

Jesus is fully God. "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:19).

This would have Mary being "fully" the mother of God, which is blasphemy.

Understood properly, it is in fact quite orthodox Christology. The blasphemy is in denying it. It's too bad they don't teach theology in church anymore.

That happens when you cut up my quote into small chunks and answer only parts at a time. Poor debate tactics. I know that Mary was a "full" mother and Jesus was "fully" God. Don't misrepresent my view by chopping up my post.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by natters:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Mary was fully the mother of Jesus, who while 100% God, was also 100% human.
...
This would have Mary being "fully" the mother of God, which is blasphemy.

I added bold to the quote above. I hope it illustrates why I don't really understand your argument, let alone am convinced by it. If Mary is "fully" the mother of Jesus (as you've admitted), and Jesus is 100% God (as you've also admitted), then why is Mary being "fully" the mother of God blasphemy? </font>[/QUOTE]Again, another chop job of my post, and intent of it. This was a reply to another poster, please read the dialogue.

Since Jesus is 100% man, and 100% God, which part was Mary the mother of? You can't claim God! In the same sense that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit make up the Godhead, while at the same time individually separate entities, Jesus was man and God, while separate at the same time. I can't believe there are so many who cannot see this.

 

[Ransom]

HankD said:

The biggest problem with the title the "Mother of God" is the excesses to which it has led.

The problem lies with the ones teaching the excesses, not a phrase which is not itself excessive.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Wow. Nestorius lives, and he's right here on this forum.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

To be fair to Nestorius, some historians now believe he never actually subscribed to Nestorianism but was misinterpreted as subscribing to it.

To be fair to the those who are unwittingly subscribing to Nestorianism on this forum, I believe they simply haven't thought through the implications of their statements. 1500 years ago, Christians thought through this issue in detail and declared those ideas to be heretical.

 

[Ransom]

webdog said:

Since Jesus is 100% man, and 100% God, which part was Mary the mother of? You can't claim God! In the same sense that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit make up the Godhead, while at the same time individually separate entities, Jesus was man and God, while separate at the same time. I can't believe there are so many who cannot see this.

The definition of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 is accepted by all branches of the Christian church as the orthodox understanding of the two natures of Christ:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body;
consubstantial [i.e. of the same essence] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

If this is the orthodox understanding of the two natures of Christ - which it is - then when webdog says, "Jesus was man and God, while separate at the same time," it is heretical. Specifically, it is Nestorianism - the view that the human and divine natures in Christ are somehow "stuck together" instead of one organic whole.

The bishops at Chalcedon were also trying to refute the opposite extreme, known as Eutychianism: that the human and divine natures of Christ joined together into a single divine nature. In response to both these heresies, the Church declared that Scripture taught that Jesus was fully God and fully man, yet a single person, and that the natures could not be separated (Nestorianism) nor confused (Eutychianism).

 

[natters]

Originally posted by webdog:
Since Jesus is 100% man, and 100% God, which part was Mary the mother of? You can't claim God!

Yes, I can and do.

Which "part"??? I sure ain't claimin' "parts" in the first place, so your question doesn't apply to me. He's not "part" God and "part" not.

Jesus is God. Mary was his mother (again, that does not mean Mary was his originator). Simple.

 

[webdog]

Who died on the cross? Can God "die" a physical death? Can God be tempted? Can God hunger? When Jesus said not even He knew the day nor hour of His return, but only God the Father...why was this? What is meant in the Bible that Jesus "became nothing" for us?

 

[webdog]

If this is the orthodox understanding of the two natures of Christ - which it is - then when webdog says, "Jesus was man and God, while separate at the same time," it is heretical.

How so? Has Mary always existed to give birth to God? Then the "mother of God" claim is false. I said that Jesus is God and man, which is not heresy. Just because we cannot understand it with our finite minds...and maybe I butchered my understanding of it...does not mean it is true to conclude that Mary was the "mother of God". The Trinity is GTF, GTS, and the HS. Do you claim, then, that the Trinity does not consist of God in three "parts"?

 

[Ransom]

Gold Dragon said:

To be fair to Nestorius, some historians now believe he never actually subscribed to Nestorianism but was misinterpreted as subscribing to it.

The jury is still out on this. In any case, it was his own refusal to refer to Mary as the "God-bearer," prefering instead "Christ-bearer" or "man-bearer," that got the Nestorian (in the heretical sense) ball rolling.

The consequences of ideas, and all that.

 

[Ransom]

webdog asked:

How so? Has Mary always existed to give birth to God?

What kind of sleight-of-hand is this? No one is claiming Mary "always existed," are they?

She is the God-bearer because she gave birth to an infant that was fully God and fully man one night 2,000 years ago. It is as simple as that.

The Trinity is GTF, GTS, and the HS. Do you claim, then, that the Trinity does not consist of God in three "parts"?

We are discussing the nature of Christ, not the Trinity. Don't change the subject.

 

[webdog]

The Trinity is GTF, GTS, and the HS. Do you claim, then, that the Trinity does not consist of God in three "parts"?

We are discussing the nature of Christ, not the Trinity. Don't change the subject.

I am on subject. And Christ is not part of the Trinity? Your statement reads as though Christ is "separate", but wait...hmmmm...when you are discussing the Trinity, you ARE discussing Christ. How can this be that Christ is a separate part, while still in the Trinity? Could this be the same with Jesus being both God and Man?

 

[Ransom]

And Christ is not part of the Trinity? Your statement reads as though Christ is "separate", but wait...hmmmm...when you are discussing the Trinity, you ARE discussing Christ.

We are not discussing Christ and his relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit, we are discussing the relationship of the human and the divine as they exist in the person of Christ. The internal relationships of the Three-In-One are not to the point.

 

[Bunyon]

Mary mother of God is a misnomer, plain and simple. No council can make it so. Mary is not the Mother of God, nor is she the Queen of Heaven, nor is she immaculant, nor is she Co-redimtrix. There may have been a day, when by agreement, some Church Fathers agreed on a certian understanding of that title that may have fit into a non-heretical view. But the way it has been used in the Catholic and their sister church the EOC and the way it has been used to this day is heretical. And there is a reason the protestants traditionally have not touched this Title with a ten foot pole. What ever ancient understanding there may have been of this title in the councils it is no longer the common understanding, that understanding died over 1500 years ago. Christians should disown the Title.

"What you seem to be saying is that if we agree with the Roman church on one thing, we have to agree with all the rest. "------------------------------------------------------------------------

No what I am saying is if we want to know what it means today, we should take a look at the folks who use and promote it and what else they say and believe. That makes plain sense.

 

[Ransom]

Bunyon said:

Mary mother of God is a misnomer, plain and simple. No council can make it so.

"Mary, mother of God" is historic, orthodox Christology. No pseudonymous BaptistBoard netizen can make it otherwise.

There may have been a day, when by agreement, some Church Fathers agreed on a certian understanding of that title that may have fit into a non-heretical view. But the way it has been used in the Catholic and their sister church the EOC and the way it has been used to this day is heretical.

So you acknowledge that historically, there is a legitimate, non-heretical sense in which the phrase "Mother of God" may be properly applied to Mary? Thank you for proving my point.

And there is a reason the protestants traditionally have not touched this Title with a ten foot pole. What ever ancient understanding there may have been of this title in the councils it is no longer the common understanding, that understanding died over 1500 years ago.

Even if some Protestant Christians get all squishy about "Romanist" titles for Mary (that the Romanists have really only hijacked anyway), the understanding of the Council of Ephesus is still the orthodox one.

Christians should disown the Title.

Christians should learn some history and properly understand the title.