No Catholic claims that the title “Mother of God” is present in Scripture.
What Catholics say is that the truth that Mary is the Mother of God is taught in Scripture.
Scripture teaches that Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Scripture teaches that Jesus is the Word (God) made Flesh.
Scripture teaches, therefore, that Mary is the Mother of God.
Scripture also tells us that Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, called Mary “the mother of my Lord.” I.e., Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, called Mary the mother of God.
How can Protestants read those crystal-clear assertions in the gospels that Mary is the mother of God, and yet obstinately deny that Scripture teaches that Mary is the mother of God?
God is, from our own perspective, a Trinity. The Trinity, as it were.
God the Father,
and the Holy Spirit. To know one of them, is to in effect, know them all.
Yet;
Now tell me, and tell me true. No extra "fluff" information. Just one simple answer unadorned with any other considerations.
Which one of the above three Persons is Mary the mother of?
Or, did she...bear, and give birth ---->to triplets?
Did she bear the entire Trinity, and so is Truly Mother Of God?
I didn't think so...
[test is over and done, class dismissed, you may go].
<
The term God Bearer, as problematic as even that can be, produces less theological trouble than hailing Mary as Mother of God has -- for that term Theotokos more closely adheres to the limiting of Mary to being only mother of the Messiah, mother of the Christ, who is known to us as the only begotten son of God, and thus, according to tradition of the Hebrews (a son being equal in essence, to his own father) is God. God among us, Emmanuel.
Meanwhile, to continue to ask "how can" when yet more reasons for the terminology, in English identifying Mary as capital "M" Mother of God can be problematic, and is often turned to in support of the apparent inflation of Mary's own role in the larger overall theological schema, appears to me to be obstinate refusal (if we are to be using that term also) on the part of Marionists (for lack of a better term) to grapple with the the fact that Marionism is indeed theological addition to the Gospel.
This aspect, of there having been additions to the Gospel is quite significant, and all in all is what the discussion has been about, with one side for the most part, obstinately deny there have been any additions, or of there has been, then those are otherwise justified by some other criteria, far enough removed from Scripture itself to negate be able to honestly refer to what the Scriptures have to say about it all, as "crystal clear in the gospels that Mary is the mother of God" unless Mary is the mother of God the Father and the Holy Spirit also.
And yet here we are, at comment/reply #889, shall it be?
**Scripture teaches that Jesus is the Word (God) made Flesh.**
Your like-minded sidekick wouldn’t answer this, how about you:
Are the biceps, triceps, hamstrings, etc. of the Son, God?
If so, then those parts of God didn’t previously exist before the physical manifestation. So, by your style of logic, part of God (his Word) is not eternal. That won’t float because the Word was with God in the beginning. WAAAAAY before Mary came along.
It’s pretty simple. Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God,...not,...God the image. Just like the scriptures say almost 50 times; Jesus Christ is the Son of God,...not,...God the Son.
The true and very real substance of God, is invisible, and was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Jesus Christ, John, and Paul, affirm that fact.
Cheerio!
(it’s bedtime already)
Also, if you think that the Word is separate and distinct from God the Father, then you REALLY need to read John 12:44-50,...at least 10 times,...very slowly.
goodnight all!
So; are you saying that 'god' did not exist until Mary birthed him?
Strange...
No, Lizzy said “the mother of my Lord.”
Please quit TWISTING what the SCRIPTURES (that Rome assembled) say!
No; Rome does.
What kind of BLINDNESS convinces a person that GOD needed a MOTHER?