Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

http://www.catholicchristiananswers.com ^ | August 12, 2015 | Jessie Neace

[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.

[metmom]

Why are you dragging Luther into it?

What’s he got to do with the topic of the thread?

Or is this just a good opportunity to use to bash Luther..... again.....?

[Arthur McGowan]

Now should you wish to.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Luther Living Rent Free in Your Head Placemarker!

Thanks ebb tide! I'm up to 3,000 on this thread now.

[ebb tide]

Bible: The Sole Rule of Faith?

Fifth Centenary of the Protestant Revolt

[af_vet_1981]

Denominations are man made...

Then we are agreed that the entire Protestant Reformation of the Christian faith was man made.

[metmom]

LOL!!!

[metmom]

So what in the books in the *Catholic* Bible that Luther supposedly removed, supports ANY of the Catholic beliefs about Mary, that would cause someone to go on an anti-Luther rampage on a thread about Mary?

Or is it just another case of LDS - Luther Derangement Syndrome?

[metmom]

The Catholic church is a denomination.

[mrobisr]

The reformation was and is a true gift of God through his Son Jesus Christ. Just as the RCC has fell into horrible sin so has a lot of PC’s. Satan doesn’t care who he destroys he will bring all down who’s house isn’t built upon the Rock that is Jesus Christ.

Revelation 2:18-29

[daniel1212]

Bearer of God and Birth Giver of God are both good translations of θεοτοκος,

As it is plainly denied by clerics on your side that θεοτοκος means the same as “Mother of God,” versus “Birth-giver to God” or “God bearer,” with the latter more denoting instrumentality than what "Mother" normally ontologically conveys, the then what is a "good translation' is based upon theological preference, which was my point, versus a quote by a native Greek speaker providing the most accurate translation.

It is sobering to realize what is happening now to the Christians who have chanted this hymn

Sad indeed (coming here incrementally) but I hope they all are Christians most of all.

[Mark17]

I am the one on FR that plays the part of Balaam's ride...

LOL. I have a ten foot pole here, for NOT touching things with.

[MHGinTN]

Actually, given the blasphemous rites and worship in pagan fashion, it looks more like Catholiciism is a different religion now. It once had roots in The Lord Jesus Christ, very early, but is now a different religion altogether, with worship of Mary, praying to dead people for intercession, eating the god of their belief system, and a priestly class ‘forgiving sin’ as if they work for God. They have the appearance of godliness but deny the power thereof to save the broken and contrite spirit and have God’s Holy Spirit indwelling, never to leave the believer.

[daniel1212]

I have sympathy for those who realize they cannot remove "God" from "Mother of God (with us)," having been warned by others they are starting down the path of heresy. As an alternative, you seem to suggest

That insinuation of motive is crafty, and your conclusion is incorrect. Mother of Jesus is not a denial of His deity, regardless if it is preferred by those who do, for just as Caths reason that Jesus is God = MOD, so since Jesus is God thus being the mother of Jesus does not deny His deity, but avoids the misleading inference that is part of the unScriptural hyper-exaltation that is the false Mary of Catholicism .

Catholics live in fantasy or denial who imagine in Bible times they would not be charged with idolatry for kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them.

As said, we can easily see Moses picking up rocks whole Caths vainly protest, "I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?"

As an alternative, you seem to suggest using the Greek word Theotokos

As a step in the right direction toward doing as Scripture does.

, either untranslated or changing all renderings of the English word "mother" to "birth giver." That is a novel approach, for English speakers.

It is not a novel approach at all to change what Greek authorities say something does not mean (the same as “Mother of God” in English), as instead it is what is correctly done in accurate translations, including using elder or bishop for NT pastors. But Caths insist on theologically imposed meanings.

"Mr. Smith, this is my mother, birth giver Miriam." Hmmm ... it may be better to learn to speak Greek instead.

Mr. Smith is a proper name, as is Jesus, while God denotes nature, being, which consists of more than one person. Thus Mother of God is as confusing and misleading as saying the Jews killed God, or that Mary was stronger than God since Jesus was an infant was God. In all cases a conditionally technically valid term is used, but it is unwarranted for common usage, unless one want to give to Mary a level of being far far above other mortals.

[ebb tide]

Calling your prot posse, are you?

Well, tell your posse that, Martin Luther said:

[S]he became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child.... Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God.... None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.”[9]

[ealgeone]

One day Luther's a good guy...next day, depending on the topic, he's a bad guy.

Poor fellow doesn't know if he's coming or going.

[ebb tide]

You can say that again.

One day Lucifer was a good guy, next day he’s in Hell for eternity.

[MHGinTN]

If the following were used to introduce 'Mother', it would infer that the Mother is not necessarily the origin off the genetic make up of the one doing the introduction: "Mr. Smith, this is my mother, birth giver Miriam." If Miriam were introduced that way there would be at least the following possibilities: 1) Miriam is not one of the haploid gene donors, but in her womb the introducer was gestated; or 2) Miriam is one of the haploid gene donors and is the Mother in whom the one in question gestated to birth; and 3) Miriam is neither genetic mother nor the one in whom the gestation happened, but she is the one who attended the birthing and perhaps adopted the introducer..

It might be interesting to find out if the poster believes MAry was source for half of the genetic makeup of Jesus' body.

[ealgeone]

One day Lucifer was a good guy, next day he’s in Hell for eternity.

Presumption on your part.

[ebb tide]

You don’t believe in the Bible?

You don’t believe in Hell?

[MHGinTN]

If the following were used to introduce 'Mother', it would infer that the Mother is not necessarily the origin off the genetic make up of the one doing the introduction: "Mr. Smith, this is my mother, birth giver Miriam." If Miriam were introduced that way there would be at least the following possibilities: 1) Miriam is not one of the haploid gene donors, but in her womb the introducer was gestated; or 2) Miriam is one of the haploid gene donors and is the Mother in whom the one in question gestated to birth; and 3) Miriam is neither genetic mother nor the one in whom the gestation happened, but she is the one who attended the birthing and perhaps adopted the introducer..

It might be interesting to find out if the poster believes MAry was source for half of the genetic makeup of Jesus' body.