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 guess I should have said:
"Someone with both vision and discernment told me that if you’re quiet inside, you can hear Satan’s laughter playing like a soundtrack throughout these discussions.Embarrassing. Sorry about that. A life-damaged, poorly-tuned receiver with dirty lenses, that’s me, both before and still after I set out to hike the path of the Christian seeker.And, if you look up, you’ll see Jesus weeping as the arguers cut Him again and again, just as when He walked among us as a man, His robes stained red with His Blood, just like in the past."
Some amazing views on this side of the hill. Wow!
“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.”
Vlad old fellow, we will continue to disagree. I believe what you posted is false. I don’t interpret that as a purposeful evil at all, but a lack of understanding of the whole counsel of God. You do not. You see it quite differently. No worries mate.
Despite disagreeing, I continue to wish you the best and not evil. We are all works in progress. I just pray, He decides how to implement on earth. I submit. I trust Him.
best.
Oh — one more thing. In regard to translations and especially the problems translating into English: I read that Jaroslav Pelikan translated “Theotokos” as “the one who gives birth to the one who is God.” I guess that is supposed to be pretty literal as far as the meaning goes, but would be one awkward mouthful if used liturgically!
The same way the first Christians in Antioch did. The same way the Kakure Kirishitan did.
Thanks for asking.
Both faith and His Word come from God.
He doesn’t need the Church in order for His Plan to succeed.
By His grace, we are part of His Royal family and are His bride. We are given to the Son by the Father.
placemarker
The OT was used to point to Christ.
“So now this version of the Bible is acceptable to you?”
I said nothing about the version. I merely posted a footnote from it to show how out of step you Freeper anti-Catholics are with even your fellow Protestants. I guess you can’t actually argue the point so you’re going to question the source or rather my use of a Protestant source? Yeah, looks like it.
“Bottom line....you’re reading something in the text that is not there.”
Except that it is there - and that’s what the editors of the Protestant Bible I posted from clearly believe.
“I just pray...”
If that were true, then you wouldn’t be posting here.
So?
Got any answers to my questions?
People on this thread might appreciate it. Here's a link with Kyrie eleison following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR3Y5hDncn4
Here's the English translation:
"It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos."
We don’t throw out the Old Testament. We also don’t rely on a fallible human institution to do our thinking for us given its poor track record. The Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest for his heliocentric papers (which were correct). Any church that incorporates torture and death to its critics would not be fit to interpret Scripture for me.
I love how Catholics are sooo modest about someones past efforts in history. We are talking about Gods Word, aren't we? Maybe God had something to do with it and men were the mere instrument to write and compile what they were moved to. Read 2Sam 23:2, Ezek. 1:3, Micah 1:1, 2Pet 1:21, etc . . . There is no person alive today that compiled it that's for sure.
“If that were true, then you wouldn’t be posting here.”
Sure Vlad! Whatever you claim!
Best with prayer.
Yes, and maybe not. What the heck are Sam, Ezek, Micah, and Pet — and why should I stake my life on what they say? How do you know any of this stuff matters?
"Stardate 2015 - We were under constant pressure from Romulan telemarketers, the incessant ringing of our communication devices, demands to buy things we did not want, pitches for aluminum siding, reductions on our credit card interest, and some highly unusual knock off of the Got Milk advertising campaign."
“Best with prayer.”
Which you’re clearly not making if you’re spending your time posting.
The context being the Bible and its interpretation, I thought you might be familiar with the authors Samuel (OT), Ezekiel(OT), Micah(OT), and Peter (NT). The abbreviations are common place amongst Prots.
“Which you’re clearly not making if you’re spending your time posting.”
Sure vlad!
When you say that Mary is the mother of Jesus do you mean in the biological sense? Or do you also mean that she is the mother of the divine nature? If so, it cannot mean that she's the mother in the sense of being before the divine nature the same way that all mothers are the progenitors of their offspring. It cannot mean that she is in a superior position than the divine Word since she is a creature and the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, existed before her.
When you say the Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity you are affirming that Jesus has a divine nature as well as a human nature, united in one person, Jesus.
However, if you are saying that Mary is the mother of the divine essence it is just as wrong as saying that Jesus is the Trinity.
Cordially,
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.