Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
It is that time of week again, where we talk about the Mary, the Mother of God. This is definitely the single most important title that Mary has. If someone gets this wrong, then they get the Divinity of our Lord wrong, and that means the whole plan of Salvation is just messed up. So let us look at this most important title.
Theotokos, God-bearer in Greek, is what the council of Ephesus declared in 431. It specifically says this “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.” Now just that statement alone proves the early Church believed that there was Authority given to the bishops to decide sound doctrine, Mary was a Holy Virgin her entire life, and that She bore God. However, we only have time for one today.
Now many times we will hear non-Catholics tell us that this title is nowhere found in Scripture, explicitly at least. However, they cannot themselves find a Scripture verse that says that all doctrine and dogma must be explicitly proven in Scripture. I bet they can never find that. This is a trap they set up for themselves and it is a very unfair double standard that they expect us to meet, but they do not have to. However, on top of this double standard is if we used that same standard, then the doctrine of the Trinity is thrown out, since it’s not an explicit teaching, but instead is implicit in Scripture. This double standard seems to cause more problems that it’s worth wouldn’t you say?
Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not. With that being said, Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another. The Traditions of men can contradict the Word of God, but the Traditions God left us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, are binding upon us, as we are to hold fast to Traditions. So then, what is the real question? The real question is, Does Scripture contradict the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, and is that doctrine found in Scripture at least implicitly?
Let us begin with Luke 1:43, where Mary visited Elizabeth. There Elizabeth exclaimed “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because Mary was the Mother of the Lord, who is the Second part of the Holy Trinity, Mary is truly and rightfully called the Mother of God.
We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.” Jesus is God. He was God when He was in the womb, conceived, lived, died, buried, resurrected, in the Eucharist, and in Heaven. The Messiah, who is God, was to be born of a virgin, according to Scripture. God was born of a virgin, and it’s right there in Isaiah, who prophesied of Christ birth. That means both Old and New Testament support the Catholic Doctrine of the Mother of God.
However, this may not be enough for some non-Catholics. Some say that Elisabeth called Christ Lord, and not God, saying that Mary was only to give birth to the human child, the Lord Jesus Christ. So then the question becomes, does lord here mean divinity or just authority? Let’s look at the context.
First let us look at 1 Cor. 8:5, which states “Indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the one True, Lord, as opposed to all the false ones, that the pagans who converted in Corinth were probably worshiping. So then, they would understand that Jesus is God. This holds true to the Jews who converted too, who would know Deut. 6:4 “Hear, therefore, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”
So then that brings us back to Luke 1:43. Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord. The Mother…Mothers give birth to persons, not natures, let us remember that. Mary did not just give birth to the human nature of Christ, she gave birth to the person of Christ. Christ personhood is Divine, it is God the Son.
Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)” Then in 2 Samuel 616 we see King David leaping in the presence of the Ark, just as John the Baptist did. Then we yet again see another parallel, which says that the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite for three months (2 Sam. 6:11), and according to Luke 1:56 Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth about three months. Then, we see that the ark of the covenant carried three items, manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod. These are all types of things Christ are, the Bread of Life, Word made Flesh, and our true High Priest.
Even knowing all this though, there are still those who would deny that Mary is the Mother of God. So then we have to ask, who is Jesus Christ to them? If Mary is not the Mother of God, then who did she give birth to? Many would say it was an earthly human lord, not God. So then, what does that make Christ? If Mary did not give birth to God, then who did she give birth to? Was not Christ God when He was conceived?
If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors, or both could happen, and that is the Denial of the divinity of Christ, and that one would have to say Christ is two distinct persons, and that he is not One. Both were considered heresy in the Early Church. Christ is one Person, with two natures, Divine and Human, which go together and are not separate of one another. If one denies that, the ultimately they are speaking about a different Christ, and St. Paul warns us about that problem, and to not to give heed to them (2 Cor. 11:4).
So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far, however, this is not true. Mary gave birth to the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2nd Person, who is still God just not the Trinity. However, we must never forget that each Person in the Trinity shares the same Divine Nature and is fully God.
One thing some still point out is that Christ is eternal, so for Mary to be the Mother of God she would have to be God. However the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. To better understand this let’s look at humanity. Parents give birth to a person, however they are not the author of life, and certainly did not give the child it’s soul. Thus is true with Mary, she did not give Christ His Divine Nature, though she was the Mother of more than just the human form of Christ, because she gave birth to a person, who was God.
It ain't MY job!
Do quotes SCARE you?
Try your Romish “Mother of GOD” on a Muslim and see the reaction!
Why won't your chosen church TELL the Muslims that their "understanding" just won't hack it!
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son.
I could have sworn that the goalposts just shifted again!
Sam is a fireman.
Dorothy is the mother of a fireman.
Only one of your syllogisms quoted above. All of them lack one thing...Dorothy, Sam, Evelyn, Gordon, and Mary were all created beings. And who created them? Yes indeed...
John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
And it appears you are avoiding answering the logical syllogisms AM posted. Don't worry I saved a copy to remind you every now and then.
Just this one. I had been a lurker for several years before I registered on October 17, 2004, using my work user id as my user name. Why do you ask?
Peace,
Rich
Hey aren’t you the one that keeps posting about logical fallacies, but yet no reply. I am shocked, Shocked I tell you, that a non-Catholic chooses to willing dodge a question. /SARC
You don’t have an ‘argument’ to rebut. As the typical catholic apologist, you whine and post scriptures, often out of context, and usually at the expense of ignoring the entirety of the Bible so the catholic ‘spacial’ interpretations can be supported, specious though they often are.
Tell me which of the following syllogism are valid, and which are invalid. If you are capable of doing so, that will demonstrate that you can recognize the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If you can’t, you can’t.
A:
Dorothy is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Dorothy is the mother of a fireman.
B:
Evelyn is the mother of a fireman.
Gordon is a fireman.
Evelyn is the mother of Gordon.
C:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.
D:
Mary is the Mother of God.
The Trinity is God.
Mary is the Mother of the Trinity.
Catholic sources admit there is no scriptural support for the immaculate conception.
Do catholics
a) disavow this false teaching?
b) continue to insist there is support for this false teaching?
If I may be more specific, do you believe Mary is “the mother of God” in the sense that Jesus was and is God, that Mary is His mother, and that through her, God entered the world in human form?
I ask this because it was your statement that “Mary is NOT the mother of God” that first drew me into this discussion. I could not understand how a Christian who believes in the Trinity and the dual nature of Jesus could not believe that Mary was the mother of God in the person of Jesus.
It was when I read John Calvin’s views on Mary that I think I understand why some say Mary should not be called the mother of God. What Faith Presses On wrote is very similar to what many believe are Calvin’s views. That while it is true that Mary is in a limited sense the mother of God in the person of Jesus, such language is not right, or becoming, or suitable.
Is this in line with what you believe?
Second: non-Catholic sources admit there is no scriptural support for the immaculate conception. Sola Scriptura
Do non-Catholics
a) disavow this false teaching?
b) continue to insist there is support for this false teaching?
It does not matter whether a syllogism deals with humans, angels, God, or anything else.
The terms in a syllogism are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the issue of validity.
If you don’t understand that, then you have absolutely NO CLUE what logic is about. You have not understood PAGE ONE of any logic textbook.
This is your argument:
The gospel says that John was baptizing, as a sign of repentance.
Jesus came, and was baptized.
Therefore, Jesus was a sinner.
I never said baptism is mentioned in the law.
I said that John was baptizing, as a sign of repentance.
According to your premise, when Jesus was baptized, this constituted a public confession that he was a sinner.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Sorry,but the catholic encyclopedia online disagrees. Scroll down to the section PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. www.immaculateconception.com
The following three syllogisms are identical in form, and all three are valid:
Dorothy is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Dorothy is the mother of a fireman.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is the incarnate Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Mary is the mother of the incarnate Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.
Anyone who says that any one of these syllogisms is invalid because one of the terms is “God,” does not have any idea what the science of Logic is about.
In the third syllogism, the word “God” is used twice—both times in EXACTLY the same sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.