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.
Um, you might want to look at the beginning verses of Chapter 14, John’s Gospel. Unless you’re catholic of course.
The logic of Christ is that he NEVER, nor did his apostles, EVER refer to the ‘Son of God’ as ‘God the Son’.
Their descriptions of the Godhead are accurate. Anyone that uses the phrase ‘God the Son’ has accepted an inaccurate description.
Jesus Christ’s description of God in John 14 alone seals it.
Jesus Christ is fully man (the original body being divinely conceived, although now a glorified body), and given the Spirit without measure (meaning he does indeed have ALL power and authority).
The Son says the Father is in him doing the works. That explains it quite well, by the ONE who knows the Godhead BETTER than any other man.
See post 32. You guys can’t have it both ways.
The only protestants that follow the teachings of Luther are Lutherans. All others do what they feel like doing because 99.9% of them think they are their own authority on the Bible and they answer to no one. The “me and Jesus” crowd. “No one ain’t telling me about Jesus cause I know how to read”. The vast majority of those on FR fall in that category.
>> “According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), ... Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173”<<
And then we see that there is no such book. The title actually is, Textual Situations: Three Medieval Manuscripts and Their Readers. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27870498?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents So, first we see that the anti-Catholic is too stupid to get the title right. Then we see that there is an ellipse in the quote in Taylor’s book. Then we see that the anti-Catholic cuts out a key phrase that is the original author’s explanation for his belief. After all truth and accuracy don’t matter to the anti-Catholic. And I know that this is the case because I just looked at the page in question.
And yet, you didn't have the guts to post the quote! Why? Talk about "truth and accuracy" not mattering. That it doesn't matter to some catholics is plainly clear now.
And even with all of that, it has to be said, it doesn’t matter what Eadmer wrote. It was just his opinion. And almost no Catholic today has ever heard of him let alone been affected by his beliefs.
Straight from the liberal/Alinsky playbook.
A large majority of writings by catholics have not been read by catholics....that would include the CCC based on what I've witnessed on this board.
Most catholics have not heard of Montfront either....but he wrote what he wrote.
A lot of catholics couldn't tell you what some of the ECFs have written or even who they were. They still wrote what they wrote. That these authors have not been read or heard of is not the point. The point is they wrote what they wrote due to the roman catholic position on Mary.
Here is the complete quote:
"Her son is the Lord and Judge of all men, discerning the merits of the individuals, hence he does not an once answer anyone who invokes him, but does it only after just judgment. But if the name of his mother be invoked, her merits intercede so the he is answered even if the merits of him who invokes her does not deserve it." From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary 800-1200,p246, Rachel Fulton, Columbia University Press, 2002
Eadmer is also quoted in the same publication: "Sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name than if we invoke the name of the Lord Jesus." Fulton, p246.
These two quotes are put together in another text, "Masculinity and Marian Efficacy in Shakespeare's England", Dr Ruben Espinosa, p. 12,Ashgate Publishing Limited, Burlington, VT.
"Sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name than if we invoke the name of the Lord Jesus.....Her son is the Lord and Judge of all men, discerning the merits of the individuals, hence he does not an once answer anyone who invokes him, but does it only after just judgment. But if the name of his Mother be invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invokes her does not deserve it. (570a-b)", p12
So thanks, Vlad....we now have the full complete quote from three sources! Glad we cleared that up.
Was Mary in Heaven at that time? Nope. Thus, you have no point at all.
Really....this is the best you've got on this one??
So catholics are saying that Mary's "powers" came only after she went to Heaven?? If Mary was all catholics claim she is why no record of anyone on the NT coming to her for help? or salvation?
the catholic cannot answer why John did not even use Mary's name in John 2....only the mother of Jesus. Again, not the mother of God, but the mother of Jesus. John knew what he was writing.
Even good doctor Luke did not call her the mother of God.
But to be clear:
Do catholics pray to Mary? check.
Do catholics have statues of Mary? check.
Do catholics kneel before Mary? check.
And again, we won't bring up the proposed Fifth Marian dogma.
I’m well aware of that chapter. Please quote the exact verse where God, the Father, declared Jesus Christ to be God.
“All others do what they feel like doing because 99.9% of them think they are their own authority on the Bible and they answer to no one.”
Eh, I think perhaps you exaggerate my FRiend. The Christians I know believe God is the ultimate authority over their lives and they answer to Him.
“The “me and Jesus” crowd. “No one ain’t telling me about Jesus cause I know how to read”. The vast majority of those on FR fall in that category.”
Eh, when you insult people and their beliefs, I think you come across like a Catholic Basher.
Best.
“Since the Second Person of the Trinity is God, it is correct to say that Mary is the Mother of God.”
Nah. God never gave her that title FRiend. Yet you are quite insistent on giving it to her.
He blessed Mary by choosing her to bear Messiah. It is quite the blessing. No need to make her into more than He did.
Best.
Oh! You mean the fifth and final Marian dogma with Mary as “advocate, mediatrix, and co-redemptrix."
Oops.
That be the one!
Note the the Word notes the Holy Spirit is our Advocate......not Mary
“And yet, you didn’t have the guts to post the quote! Why?”
Boy, do you make things up when you’re cornered! Why do I have to post the quote? You posted an incomplete one. All that is incumbent upon me is to point out that fact. If you want the rest of the quote, then read the original! I did.
“Talk about “truth and accuracy” not mattering. That it doesn’t matter to some catholics is plainly clear now.”
I said nothing that was inaccurate or untruthful. You did. Remember, I pointed out you posted a quote that was incomplete - a fact you probably didn’t even know since you were apparently simply lifting it from another website (without attribution, of course). Everything I said was truthful and accurate. What you said was not.
“Straight from the liberal/Alinsky playbook.”
Really? So if I say “Luther believed in bigamy” and you respond with, “Luther’s opinion on marriage doesn’t really matter. He was merely speaking for himself” that’s a Liberal/Saul Alinsky play? Really? Man, you really seem desperate.
“Most catholics have not heard of Montfront either....but he wrote what he wrote.”
Ha! No, he didn’t. It’s Monfort, not Montfront. Oy vey! The usual inaccuracy of the anti-Catholic.
“Here is the complete quote:”
Actually we don’t know from Fulton’s book if that is complete. And why are you ditching Taylor for Fulton? Have you read either book or are you just posting from yet another anti-Catholic website?
“Her son is the Lord and Judge of all men, discerning the merits of the individuals, hence he does not an once answer anyone who invokes him, but does it only after just judgment. But if the name of his mother be invoked, her merits intercede so the he is answered even if the merits of him who invokes her does not deserve it.” From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary 800-1200,p246, Rachel Fulton, Columbia University Press, 2002”
Then you posted: “Eadmer is also quoted in the same publication: “Sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name than if we invoke the name of the Lord Jesus.” Fulton, p246”
So you just put the quotes in the reverse order Taylor had them. Did you even notice?
And, again, none of what Eadmer says matters.
“Really....this is the best you’ve got on this one??”
Since my point completely overturned yours, nothing better culd possibly be needed. Heavenly saints are those saints in heaven. They would only be asked for intercession in heaven when in heaven.
“So catholics are saying that Mary’s “powers” came only after she went to Heaven??”
Who are these “catholics”?
“If Mary was all catholics claim she is why no record of anyone on the NT coming to her for help? or salvation?”
Again, who are these “catholics”? Was Mary in heaven at that point?
“So thanks, Vlad....we now have the full complete quote from three sources! Glad we cleared that up.”
Actually an ellipse (...) indicates it is not complete. You do realize that, right? And, again, it doesn’t matter what Eadmer thought.
“the catholic cannot answer why John did not even use Mary’s name in John 2....”
Again, who is this “catholic”? Also, if John didn’t use his own name, why would he use Mary’s? He never uses her name. He simply refers to her as Jesus’ mother. Have you not noticed that before?
“only the mother of Jesus. Again, not the mother of God, but the mother of Jesus. John knew what he was writing.”
So you’re denying that Jesus was God? John didn’t. Are you claiming John denied Mary’s Son was Jesus? John didn’t.
“Even good doctor Luke did not call her the mother of God.”
Sure he did: Luke 1:43. As I posted earlier: “Elisabeth confessed faith already in the person of Jesus, for she noted that Mary bore the God-man (mother of my Lord).” Footnote in The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible for Luke 1:43.
“But to be clear: Do catholics pray to Mary? check. Do catholics have statues of Mary? check. Do catholics kneel before Mary? check. And again, we won’t bring up the proposed Fifth Marian dogma.”
And you’re still wrong: praying to Mary is not worship. Having statues is not worshiping Mary or statues of Mary. Kneeling in front of a statue is no more worshiping the statue or the person it represents than going down on one knee to ask a woman to marry you is to worship her.
But anti-Catholics don’t care about truth or accuracy.
“Your a nice fella but you’re making one mistake after another.”
Actually I didn’t make a single mistake.
“That’s a bad pattern.”
There can’t be a pattern without a series or errors and I made not a single one. Thus, no pattern.
“I am weary of your pattern of failure.”
You can’t be weary of what doesn’t exist.
From Matthew, ch 1:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”
From Hebrews, ch 1:
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”But about the Son he says,
In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire.”
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,There's more, but this enough to make the point.
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Right you are!
You've made several. And they keep right on coming!
In fact, it's downright entertaining!
Have a nice evening!
Got anything besides circular reasoning?
Are you denying Jesus is ‘God with us’? Did you read what Jesus told Philip?
You think it’s impossible to be a Christian outside of scripture? Where’s it say that in Scripture, please?
Do you post under more than one name at FR?
You’ve never actually read Galatians, have you?
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.