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.
You see my point.
Similarly, anyone who worships the Creator of the Universe is worshiping the Trinity, whether they know it or not (just like the ancient Greeks, as St. Paul acknowledged).
Which, true to course, is making it personal by inferring i my conclusions are due to bias and not objective reasoning.
Any Christian should be able to freely confess these two truths. Mary is the mother of God (with us).
Your own use of the qualifier (with us) thus clarifying that what is meant is that Mary is the mother of God "manifest in the flesh" (akin to Rm. 9:5), itself testifies to the problem of the unqualified use of "Mother of God.
Jesus is God the Son.
Yet which I do and manifestly did confess, even by providing you with abundant evidence as "affirming Jesus Christ is God the Son in response to the question!" But instead of acknowledging that you basically played inquisitor and required i submit to your demand for a certain statement affirming what i never denied and abundantly evidenced!
Then, in refuting the premise that despite abundant testimony that Jesus is God the Son, yet a specific explicit statement is required, I pointed out to you that even the Holy Spirit
does not provide "the phrase Jesus is God the Son or "God the Son" or even Jesus is God. Thus according to your demand for this explicit statement it must be questionable that the Holy Spirit believes Jesus is God the Son, or even that Jesus is God,"
Yet to which you responded with the snide spitwad conclusion, Thank you for expressing what you believe.
And now you presume your insolence still warrants a reply?! By this and many other past response you have only further relegated yourself to the class of certain other unreason-able RC double-standard devotees who rarely warrant replies except to expose them to the unlearned.
Take a hike.
You seem quite fond of repeating that phrase. I'm wondering who taught you that LIE? Jesus did not establish and organization, He started building HIS ekklesia of spiritual new borns, who were at the beginning ALL JEWS, not catholics.
Men who sought and enjoyed power started the organization and different religion known as catholiciism today. That religion is hallmarked by pagan idol worship, eating the god of that religion, raising dead people to positions of mediators, and a host of other habits, all asserted to be essential to obtain eternal life. Of course it is ONLY God Who can place His eternal life in the born from above, who are born by HIS Grace not their striving and pride-filled works of specious righteousness.
So, where did you obtain this LIE that Jesus established an organization? From the catholic catechisms? From roman catholic priests? A pope? ... If you say from God you learned this LIE, then the truth is not in you because Jesus is building even today His ekklesia of believers in His Saving Grace, not their filthy rags works.
There are a lot of synonyms for such.
Can God sin? ... You really should spend more time in The Word of God and less time in video gaming.
For all practical purposes, that’s about what it amounts to, no matter how they redefine words and explain away actions.
metmom, do you agree with what Faith Presses On wrote in his post, as follows:
I was just thinking the other day in response to some articles on this subject that the Catholic charge against Bible-believing Protestants makes no sense. We DO believe Mary is “the mother of God” in the sense that we believe that Jesus was and is God. We aren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example. Jesus was and is God, and Mary is His mother. Through her, God entered the world in human form. We agree with all that, and that’s one of the things we actually agree on in a formal sense.
And interestingly, too, Wikipedia says that “Theotokos” means something like “the one who gives birth to God,” rather than “Mother of God.” To that, Catholics would say, “mother” means “one who gives birth to.” Yet, the word “mother” isn’t used. So why should they have trouble with Protestants saying to them that Mary is the mother of Jesus, or the Christ? After all, even if the word God isn’t used, we believe Jesus Christ is God, so it is implicit in the belief that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, and hence, God - so long as someone believes that Jesus was and is God.
And then, furthermore, they say they believe just as we do - that Mary isn’t the mother of the eternal God. That isn’t what they mean by “Mother of God.” They mean that she is the mother of the Son of God in His Incarnation.
If you believe Mary is the mother of God (with us) and Jesus is God the Son, then yes, a simple, straightforward reply is warranted. If not, you need not add to your previous reply referring to the Holy Spirit. As I already mentioned, your question pointing to your own blog was inconclusive. It but requires a simple "yes" or "no" to answer. It is not complicated. Continuing to make it personal is unwarranted.
How many names do you post under at Freerepublic.com?
That’s not what the ccc says however.
More than just scary. These are what keep voting democratrs to power. The hypocrisy is palpable.
I can't believe that you have not received a reply to this yet /SARC.
Maybe we should ask another non-Catholic:
Tell me which of the following syllogism are valid, and which are invalid. If you are capable of doing so, that will demonstrate that you can recognize the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If you can’t, you can’t.
A:
Dorothy is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Dorothy is the mother of a fireman.
B:
Evelyn is the mother of a fireman.
Gordon is a fireman.
Evelyn is the mother of Gordon.
C:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.
D:
Mary is the Mother of God.
The Trinity is God.
Mary is the Mother of the Trinity.
And there we have it......
Right from a Catholic.
Using regular English punctuation is now "scare quotes"?
Mary is not the mother of God. Mary was the mother of Jesus.
Return to your pigeons. You’re in over your head.
In which case, the term *mother of Jesus* is adequate for the task and should be used, just as the Holy Spirit did when He inspired Scripture to be written.
Wow another personal attack rather than rebutting the argument. I really wish I could say I was surprised, but I am never am at the ignorance of the non-Catholic Christian posers.
I guess HE was wrong; considering how your 7 CATHOLIC churches in ASIA were described by what the angel told John to write.
That’s what the hare was thinking; too.
Matthew 3:15 Douay-Rheims Bible
And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him.
Just WHERE is baptism even MENTIONED in the LAW?
I think you are avoiding the Greek Lord/GOD thing.
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.