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.
I used the link your provided!
“Because they reject the title “Mother of God” — a title which is Christological. It is about the Blessed Mother only in a secondary way; the importance of “Mother of God” is that it tells us who Jesus is. For those who want to know.”
I will disagree with your expressed opinion for Biblical reasons:
1. God never, ever uses the title Mother of God.
2. No Apostle ever uses the title Mother of God.
3. No Christian writings, artwork or historical works ever us the title Mother of God before 100 AD. As such, it is certainly not the Apostle’s teaching.
4. The identity of Christ as God doesn’t rely on this title in any way.
5. Since the title is never used in Scripture, it is unnecessary to “tell us who Jesus Christ is.”
6. It is one further step in making Blessed Mary into an idol and demigoddess, instead of the humble servant of God that she is - flaws and all. God honored her in exactly the way He chose to do so. We should not do less. We should not do more.
Best.
Ever hear the expression “the eyes are the window to the soul” or that “God is the Light”? Well, apparently my glasses needed cleaning.
What I first "saw" as people arguing over “The Law” was true from that point of view, but the view was still a bit fuzzy.
Once I cleaned my glasses and let in more of the Light, and then used the “Seeker” filter set to “Hiker” mode, I could then see that what I saw before as “The Law” is actually “The Map” that leads HOME!
Using that same filter, the glasses showed that everyone was arguing over "The Map" and the details, while marking over huge chunks of spiritual territory with “Here there be dragons!”.
And then they started arguing about that, too! Lol...
About what colors of crayons to use to mark them with, where the borders are, how big the dragons are, etc., etc.
Personally, what good is a map if you don't use it, right?
I think maps are meant to be followed and I know that the best maps lead to some seriously awesome, but usually buried, treasure, so I’m off to see for myself.
You know what? I bet I find some better glasses along the way, too. That’s the part I like best, finding cool stuff along the trail.
Most times it’s like hunting for morel mushrooms the first time you go. At first, you don’t see them no matter where you look until you find that first one.
After that, it’s like your inner "target seeker" is now calibrated correctly and you see ‘em all over the place!
I bet I also find a pair of glasses that helps me see exactly where to step, too. The original foot prints are still there, but they're hard to see.
I know this much, no matter where and what this map takes me to and through, I know where it leads.
I'll try to send some postcards back to those still back at the start arguing about the map.
I bet they tear them up without even looking at the picture on the front, let alone read the note, but, who knows, I might be wrong about that same way I was about how I saw "The Law".
Note to self: "Keep those glasses clean!"
1. So what. God never uses the word “Trinity” either.
2. We don’t know that.
3. The first half millennium of the Church’s history was a serious of vigorous — very vigorous — arguments about who Jesus is. Because the Apostolic age lasted till about 100, heretical christologies had trouble taking root, but they were all over the place by the end of the next century.
4. There is no better descriptor of who Jesus is. What do you have to say about the Redeemer’s dual natures? Do you believe he has a divine will as well as a human will? Do you believe Jesus is fully God and fully man? If so, what does that mean, and how else would you express it?
5. The original deposit of the faith is not entirely scriptural — as scripture itself testifies, over and over again. Furthermore the emergence of heretical christologies proves that Scripture alone wasn’t getting the job done.
6. This ridiculous and hysterical claim is utterly without foundation. More to the point, the Blessed Virgin had no flaws. If she had, your redemption would be fraudulent and void.
If Scripture alone contains the only acceptable descriptors about Jesus, why do you respond in words of your own devising?
Answer my earlier questions please: How many natures does Jesus have? How many wills? If more than one, how are they related? When were they acquired? Does one predominate over the other?
Without the Immaculate Conception, your redemption is bogus.
John 6:40 disagrees with you as does John 3:16....and the rest of the New Testament.
No mention of Mary needing to be sinless for salvation....only belief in Christ.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
When a word or words change meaning in the usage of an argument the result is the fallacy of equivocation. The problem with the syllogism above is the ambiguity in the meaning of the words, "God" and "mother".
It's like saying:
Jesus is God.
God is a Trinity.
Jesus is the Trinity.
Cordially,
John 6:38 is the verse you should be looking at.
Why is it Jesus’s will to do the will of the Father?
What will are we talking about?
Where does it come from?
If Jesus has a fully human nature, where did he get it?
If Mary had a fallen human nature, how could she give complete assent to the Incarnation?
If Mary did not give complete assent to the Incarnation, is God a rapist?
If Mary did not give complete assent to the Incarnation, is Jesus really one of us?
If Jesus received a tainted human nature from his mother, how could he be wholly conformed to the will of his Father?
There is no atonement without the Immaculate Conception.
Non-biblical assertion on your part.
I’ve always had skepticism about Romulans and especially Romulans who demand others work for them for free. I did think your warbirds were pretty cool with the cloaking ability.
Best
What is "complete assent"? What does that even mean...
Luke 1:38a And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”
If Mary did not give complete assent to the Incarnation, is God a rapist?
This is the wackiest thing I've ever heard. I know that Catholics assert that scripture should not be interpreted by laymen, but come on! How is Mary's statement to be understood except as complete assent?
If Jesus received a tainted human nature from his mother, how could he be wholly conformed to the will of his Father?
What? Why would Jesus receive a tainted human nature from Mary? By the same reasoning, Mary would have received a tainted human nature from her mother. Either Jesus is a special case, or it's turtles all the way down.
Besides, if Mary didn't have a tainted human nature, is she really one of us?
There is no atonement without the Immaculate Conception.
Worst reasoning ever!
You say that as if it proves something. It doesn’t.
About as credible as “Oz, The Great And Powerful”.
You may want to reference the catholic encyclopedia online before you attempt to answer.
Do you affirm or deny that Mary is the mother of "God with us" according to the scriptures ? And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 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. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses thirteen to fourteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses eighteen to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
I said nothing that was false, and you can’t be seriously wishing me the best if you’re going to keep posting things about what I said that are not true.
Mary being one of us therefore could not have given complete assent to God's invitation if she had suffered as we do from the consequences of Adam's sin.
How is Mary's statement to be understood except as complete assent?
How indeed? For the angel had just greeted her as "kecharitomene".
Why would Jesus receive a tainted human nature from Mary?
She is the sole source of his human nature. Everything human about Jesus comes from Mary. I hope you are not suggesting Jesus is less than fully human. If he is fully human, it can only be from his mother, and only because she gave herself to the divine plan wholly and without reservation -- something you or I could never do. Jesus could not be the only "special case", because the Father didn't snatch her off the street; he asked her permission.
Mary's as much one of us as Jesus, who as the new Adam could not have achieved the atonement unless he'd been one of us as much as his mother:
"above all women glorified,
Our tainted nature's solitary boast"
“I make no claims.” —— Not a claim. It’s a fact.
“Everything I said is simply a fact.” - Again, not a claim. Everything I said was true.
“So she is the mother of God.” - Again, not a claim. Jesus is God and Mary is His mother. Case closed.
“...He preserved her from sin.” - Again, not a claim. Whether or not you believe it changes nothing.
You clearly can’t make an actual argument about the issue. And that’s not a claim either.
Why didn't she say the "mother of her God" then vs "mother of her Lord"?
As there is one Lord, there is one God.
Elizabeth knew exactly what she meant by her statement.
You're attempting to read something into the text that's not there.
Heck no — and so what?
The Scriptures are not the last word on the authentic faith. As a bible-believer, you ought to believe that, unless you believe only the parts of the bible you like.
It’s not necessary to “know” anything to be saved. People incapable of reason or self-knowledge are saved all the time.
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.