MARY THE MOTHER of GOD

[Trying2DoRight]

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!

 

[padredurand]

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!

I'm guessing this bait don't fish.

 

[annsni]

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!

I hope you're not looking for anyone to disagree with you on a Baptist board.

 

[Zenas]

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!

First allow me to remind you that your grammar is bad. You need to say, "No woman is . . . ." or if you really mean multiple female humans you should say, "No women are . . . ."

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?

 

[Trying2DoRight]

First allow me to remind you that your grammar is bad. You need to say, "No woman is . . . ." or if you really mean multiple female humans you should say, "No women are . . . ."

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?

I believe you believe you are right! But there again so does the devil!

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.

 

[BobRyan]

. . ."

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.

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

 

[evangelist-7]

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 was not the mother of God.
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.
.

 

[Sapper Woody]

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.

 

[Zenas]

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:

We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.

So the term “Mother of God” should not be understood to mean that Mary is older than God or that she is the source of her Son’s divinity. She is certainly not. She did give birth to the Word who became flesh, thus her name Theotokos or Mother of God.

 

[Walter]

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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."

Surely the perfect place to say "Mother of God" if in fact it were the case.

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".

Mary is the Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ, her Son,

By that reasoning "Stronger than God, Wiser than God, teacher of God, Mother of God, the one who taught God his name, taught God the Bible..."

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

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Zenas
. . ."

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.

Very well 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.

Even our Catholic brethren know that the list of titles above are applicable under the same guise as "Mary Mother of God because Jesus is God" yet they know that such titles are blasphemy and do not use them in general.

Most of the views expressed here sound of the ancient heresy Nestorianism.

it is a well-tried method of the dark ages to simply ignore the point being made and call it all "heresy". Name-calling "as the solution" has been tried even on this very board not in any way connected with the RCC or its doctrine as the way out of a number of tight spots.

But the point remains because that method proves nothing.

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.

So far everyone that has responded has claimed that Jesus was the same pre-existing PERSON as God the Son. So not sure why you are going there.

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'.

Rather, he tried to separate Christ into two persons.

The fact that Christ is ONE PERSON with God the Son and that God the Son in his pre-existent state HAD No MOTHER - invalidates the claim that Mary is the Mother of God because God existed before Mary - in fact God was involved in the start-of the creation-of Mary but Mary did not create God in any way. Mary was involved in the INCARNATION but not in the creation 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

 

[Walter]

Surely the perfect place to say "Mother of God" if in fact it were the case.

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".


By that reasoning "Stronger than God, Wiser than God, teacher of God, Mother of God, the one who taught God his name, taught God the Bible..."

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

Thanks for your response, Bob. It has been a while since I participated on any of the 'bash the RC threads'. Frankly, I tired of re-hashing the same points over and over as has been done in this forum for years. Nothing new to see here. Frankly, Christians are going to continue these assaults on each simply because we are all convinced we have the right positions. As long as the Church is on this side of the Second Coming, we are going to disagree and dispute. The disciples did it, the Church at Corinth did it [1 Cor 1:10-19], and Bishops did it with sincere conviction in the early councils of the Church and continue it to this day.

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.

 

[Walter]

Surely the perfect place to say "Mother of God" if in fact it were the case.

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".

Many other places in scripture when terms such as Trinity & incarnation could be used and they are used almost non-stop by Christians around the world. But those terms are NEVER found ANYWHERE in scripture. So much for your reasoning.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Walter
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."

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".

Surely the perfect place to say "Mother of God" if in fact it were the case.

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".

Quote:
Mary is the Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ, her Son,

By that reasoning "Stronger than God, Wiser than God, teacher of God, Mother of God, the one who taught God his name, taught God the Bible..."

So then why do we not use such misleading titles all over the place?

Possibly because we do not want to mislead.

Thanks for your response, Bob. It has been a while since I participated on any of the 'bash the RC threads'.

I have seen plenty of threads where the primary substance is little more than name-calling, harrumph! and pulpit pounding. I too have little interest in those kinds of discussion.

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.

No question that the Gospel message of salvation is always the main point. But the whole reason for calling tradition into question and holding it accountable to the sola-scriptura test even if it cost Protestants their life to do so - is that "doctrine matters".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[evangelist-7]

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.

I've been to Ephesus twice, and I love it.
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?
.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

If Jesus of Nazareth was not God Incarnate from the moment of his conception, exactly when did he become God Incarnate?

 

[Walter]

If Jesus of Nazareth was not God Incarnate from the moment of his conception, exactly when did he become God Incarnate?

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[BobRyan]

If Jesus of Nazareth was not God Incarnate from the moment of his conception, exactly when did he become God Incarnate?

God the Son was "incarnated" he was not created 2000 years ago.
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