Posted on 01/01/2007 3:34:16 PM PST by Salvation
You seemed so wise, I naturally....:)
LOL!
Mother of God is not the testimony of the Holy Spirit but of Man.
So does the testimony of Isaiah count?Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated, God with us." That is a reference to Isaiah 7:14
Ofcourse. You'll notice a distinct lack of the Mother of God title.
I have a son whose name is Shawn. Therefore, would I not be the mother of Shawn? Mary has a son. His name is Immanuel. The name Immanuel means God with us. That is telling you that her son is God. Therefore wouldn't she be the mother of God? I find it curious that you say the the title mother of God is not there as if that somehow means she is not His mother.
Why do you suppose Mary is never called the Mother of the Son of God in the bible. Mary is never given such titles by the Holy Spirit. There is a reason for that.
The very wording is self explanitory. God has no Mother except to Mormons and Pagans and other strange religions. The very phrase screams blasphemy. The Son of God came to Earth through a virgin and lived among us as a Man. But the Eternal God, the I am, clearly has no mother.
You are correct that Mary is not the mother of the Eternal God.He is the Creator and she is His creation. Having said that, all of Christ's humanity came from her and know one else. Also once He became flesh and dwelt among us, His humanity and divinity became inseperable. That union, fully God and fully man, took place in her womb.Christ is not two people, He is one, true God and true man. He was that as infant til now. So what I am trying to figure out is this: do you see Him as two seperate persons where by she could only be the mother of his humanity?
You are correct that Mary is not the mother of the Eternal God.How many Gods are there?
The Son of God came to Earth through a virgin and lived among us as a Man. But the Eternal God, the I am, clearly has no mother.Same question: How many Gods are there?
I see him as "taking on flesh". I believe you see it as "her giving him flesh". Secondly you seem to contradict yourself. You already said that she is not the mother of the eternal God, but then you hedge.
How about the Blessed Shepherds of God? Why did God pick them?
The Son of God is the Eternal God.
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
The Marian verion of this and many many verses of the bible require something like "and was made in the likeness of men though the cooperation and agreement of the blessed Virgin". If there were about a thousand such entries than Mary would deserve the "adoration and recognition" given to her by the RCC.
The Son of God is the Eternal God.If there's only One God, and God was born of the virgin Mary, that makes Mary God's mother, no?
Thus you demonstrate how the "titles" of the Theotokos are not about her but about God and Jesus. And while the Nestorian controversy was about The Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, here we've backed into a Trinitarian controversy. Now as then the question whether Mary is properly called "Mother of God" is not a question about the creature Mary, the most blessed of women, but about how God was in Christ.
As far as I can understand it, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that God was so intimately bound up with the person of Jesus that if Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, she was also mother of the God Jesus. That is, so to speak, extrinsic to Mary qua Mary, but it is rather what was given to her in the act of appalling humility which is the Incarnation. We do not celebrate Mary as a unique creature but as a human woman given mind-bogglingly great gifts on the periphery of the even more mind-bogglingly great gift to all mankind of the Incarnation of God.
I am reminded of people who cavil at the Walking on Water but accept the Resurrection. If we're going to accept the thought-shattering miracle of the Incarnation, why bridle at some comparatively trival side-benefits of the miracle.
I would venture to suggest -- just to suggest, mind you -- that possibly those who do not imagine so great a comet as the Incarnation being accompanied by an escort of small glowing meteors, like the bestowal of an Immaculate soul upon Mary, are really failing to appreciate the magnitude of the Incarnation.
Some small hints of its glory leak around the edges. Wise men consulting stars and sages know something is up. Rascally shepherds see the sky light up with celestial beings carolling. God Himself adorns the great miracle with flourishes and music and smaller prodigies - large to us, to be sure, but small by comparison.
If God wanted Shepherds to know about His nativity, He wanted EVERYOne to know.
Who did Jesus pray to?
The only time I'm aware of that anyone heard or saw Jesus pray was the night before He died. At that time, Jesus addressed his prayers to "Father."
Is it okay if I just ask you to make your point? He prayer to the Father, about whom He also said, "I and the Father are one," which the Jehovah's Witnesses construe to mean that He and the Father had the same agenda.
The problem with my answer is the problem, I think, that Trinitarian theology seeks to solve.
Okay I answered your question. Would you like to answer eastsider's?
The aspect/person of God to whom Jesus prayed was not born of Mary, therefore Mary is not the mother of God.
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.