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.
Read the sentence in the Greek. Jesus was not establishing an organization. Poor thing, you have been fed this lie so often that now you are stuck with it as if it is the Gospel. Check the Greek word ekklesia and the meaning thereof. Even Augustine affirmed that the profession of Whom Jesus IS was the rock upon which Jesus is building His ekklesia. But dance some more on the head of that lie and see what it results in for your eternal destiny, as you strive to obtain eternal life by working through the institutionalizations of your religion.
LOL ... you’re a hoot, dude!
are you saying that Jesus never referred to Mary as His mother.....mom....?????
The point of saying she is “the Mother of God” is that God became man, through being born of a virgin.
God “visited His people,” took on human form, and in doing so, He just didn’t appear as a man, as God other times did in the Old Testament. He came as a baby in the womb of a woman.
I have almost no doubt that you don’t know that these points are articulated in the Five Fundamentals of fundamental Christianity. In the same way, I’m sure you know that Bible-believing evangelicals believe this.
But the above is all that your syllogism covers. And there is so much more to logic than what you mention, when you study all the different rules for it. But yes, Mary is “Mother of God,” within some very limited sense.
Catholics also don’t believe, though, that as Jesus existed with the Father, and of course the Holy Spirit, before the world began, that Mary is the mother of the Tri-une God, or that Jesus didn’t exist before He was born to Mary. That’s all evangelicals are discounting.
A lot of this is just obfuscation that begins with our limited and incomplete understanding of the Trinity. We have simply not been given a complete understanding of it by God.
And the problem with the Catholic title of “Mother of God” is that the context seems deliberately downplayed and put out of the mind in all sorts of ways and exalting Mary begins to be brought in from there, to the point she ends up being Co-Redemptrix and someone a Catholic should devote themselves to completely.
No one, at this time, can force anyone to confess that Jesus is Immanuel and that Mary is the mother of Immanuel. It is totally an act of faith and love.
Where does God, the Father, refer to Jesus Christ as “God”.
Chapter and verse, please.
As usual, they are trying their best to justify their falling away from true Christianity....the Bible really didn't mean this, or the Bible was just talking about bread, not transubstantiation, Mary is buried somewhere but nobody remembers where....when you make serious errors in your life, you do anything that you can think of to justify them.....it never works.
This unsubstantiated veneration of the Mother of Jesus is yet more evidence that catholiciism is not Christianity, it is 'another religion' foisting 'another gospel' ... and we have Paul's instructions on how to deal with 'another gospel'.
Well done; do you believe Mary is the mother of Immanuel, which the scripture translates as "God with us?"
Scripture always quotes Him as calling her *Woman*.
Do you have other Scripture showing where He called her *Mom*?
From the website:
The Catholic Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history. This easy-to-search online version was originally printed between 1907 and 1912 in fifteen hard copy volumes.
That's a great question for YOU to answer and explain then why the Catholic church changed the title the Holy Spirit gave to her.
Holy Spirit inspired *mother of Jesus* works just fine for me.
It says all I need to know about Mary's role in the life of Jesus, and it prevents any theological error by attributing beginning to God and deifying Mary.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
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.
Could you put your question on context? It makes no sense.
Oh goodie.
Does Can get a treat for being right?
The snotty, condescending attitude of Catholics towards other of whom they approve is one reason why so many of your questions remain unanswered.
Nobody is required to answer to you, nor is anyone seeking for your approval when they do.
Red herrings never make sense.
Who cares what Greek says???..Jesus wasn't speaking Greek when He said it, He was probably speaking aramaic and Peter knew EXACTLY what He was saying.
you are easily entertained!!
You may recall the NT is written in Greek...and for a reason. Jesus spoke Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Most likely He was talking Hebrew if with Peter.
Ignoring the Greek has gotten roman catholicism into some of the false teaching it proclaims today.
"PROBABLY" speaking Greek?!?!?!
You don't care what the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture says in the language in which it was inspired, and hang your hat on what may have been said in maybe a different language??????
And you know what Jesus said in the Aramaic just how? And you know He was speaking Aramaic in the first place, just how?
How do you know He wasn't speaking Hebrew?
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.