“And who am I that the MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me,” said St. Elizabeth to Mary, when Mary was about a week pregnant.
Now, this comes straight out of the gospel of St. Luke. Who wrote the gospel of St. Luke? GOD! Correct?
So St. Luke reports that Elizabeth—herself speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit, because her BABY leapt in her womb when she heard Mary’s voice—called Mary “the mother of my Lord.”
And WHO is this “Lord”? GOD! Correct?
So the gospel calls Mary the “mother of [the] Lord,” which is EXACTLY equivalent to “Mother of God.”
Are you going to continue to contradict the word of God, the gospel, the Scriptures, by refusing to call Mary “the mother of God”?
Arthur,
“Are you going to continue to contradict the word of God, the gospel, the Scriptures, by refusing to call Mary “the mother of God”?”
I posted *extensively up thread on this passage, showing it means something different than you claim. Read it if you are interested. I don’t see any point in reposting it again.
In short, I won’t call dear Mary that which God never called her. Why would you take the position of superiority to God in this matter and insist others follow this error?
I am content to trust He knows exactly what He chose dear Mary to do. I never want to go down that path of idolizing this humble woman or making her into a demigoddess.
Best
Are you going to continue to worship the mother goddess, even though the Bible tells you that before there was a Universe God existed, even before there was a Mary Mother of Jesus?
God's name is I AM. Therefore anything finite cannot have been the Mother of I AM. BUT, the blessed Mother of Jesus can be the Mother of the man-side of Jesus without contradicting the Bible. Why is it that your magicsteeringthem doesn't see that?