Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[NYer]

January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God.  To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God.  The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary. 

So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).

Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus.   Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God.  The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity.  (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3.  This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)

1.  The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:

The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”

This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day.  Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:

The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest.  The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26.  The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.

         The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch.  In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus.  Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36).  Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab.  Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25).  Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mārāh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13).  This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.

         Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus.  If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment.  And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.” 

         Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.

The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6.  The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel. 

A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name

“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14).  The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament.  By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.”  He is the only God who truly is.  Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause.  Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being.  While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ“ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him.  However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ“ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence. 

The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios.  Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament.  This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).

The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system.  The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced.  The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.”  Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles.  In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.

The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance.  The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present.  Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.

The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way. 

In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts.  There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name.  Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground.  This is recorded in Sirach:

Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name;  21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism.  So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:

And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)

Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)

We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons. 

First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us. 

Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus.  For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.”  Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation.  When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:

Phil. 2:10  At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …

It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.”  Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name.  For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources.  The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice.  For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.

2.  The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:

Brothers and sisters:

When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,

born of a woman, born under the law,

to ransom those under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as sons.

As proof that you are sons,

God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

crying out, “Abba, Father!”

So you are no longer a slave but a son,

and if a son then also an heir, through God.

This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)

This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired).  Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith.  Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God.  In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy.  In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All.  Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.

Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship.  From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children.  The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.”  So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time.  Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).  The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10).  So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.”  No longer a slave to what?  Sin, death, and the devil.  If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves.  If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God.  This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.

4.  The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,

and the infant lying in the manger.

When they saw this,

they made known the message

that had been told them about this child.

All who heard it were amazed

by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things,

reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned,

glorifying and praising God

for all they had heard and seen,

just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,

he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel

before he was conceived in the womb.

We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”  This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called.  Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts. 

Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …”  This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation.  Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus.  Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy.  It is an encounter with a person.  All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him.  In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us —  3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy.  This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.

Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision.  Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12).  Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.

The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.”  In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ.  Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.

Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father.  It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so.  Jesus is unique.  So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).  This is not arrogance.  Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children.  This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel.  In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel. 

On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17).  This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation. 

[ealgeone]

We had potato soup and cornbread tonight.

It's cold here tonight.

[daniel1212]

The proof that you are sons is that God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts: the Spirit that cries, ‘Abba, Father’,

Not "mama, Mother" which the the Spirit of his Son never inspired any writer of Scripture to pray to Heaven.

[Syncro]

Oh yes it is.

Those of us that were on the thread where it happened were gobsmacked.

[rwa265]

Aside from the fact that the Incarnation of Deity had a human body and Deity Himself doesn’t have a human body, do tell what is it?

---

Gabriel told Mary that the Holy Ghost shall come upon her, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow her: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God.

When this happened, did not the Deity Himself become the Incarnation of Deity? Isn’t that what is meant by “the Word was made flesh”?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Supposed to go down to 16^o here tonight. I didn't cover my kale, so we'll see if it's as hardy as they say.

We had a good ham bone in our soup beans. I like a ham bone in potato soup, too. But alas there are factions. The ham vs non-ham factions, as well as the relatively clear (but crowded) broth containing chunks of potato, vs the blenderized kind.

But we live in peace! Pass the cornbread!

[daniel1212]

No. She is the Mother of Jesus. Is Jesus not God?

True, and by which logic Mary's parents were grandparents of God, and believers are brothers of God, and the Jews and Romans killed God. But which is misleading and inconsistent with Scripture. For one, the normal unqualified conveyance of this is that if ontological oneness, while Christ is the Creator of Mary and she contributed nothing to His Deity.

And the Holy Spirit is careful to make that distinction when stating the Christ came out of Israel: "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5) And nowhere calls Mary the Mother of God, nor believers "brothers of God," which also sends a confusing message and risks blasphemy.

Such is not the language of the Spirit, who is very careful about giving titles, and refrains from giving glorious titles to mortals, while Mother of God is part of the egregious unScriptural exaltation of one whom the Spirit says little of, and what is said is not even close to the Catholic extravagance, which thinks of mortals way above what is written, contra 1Co. 4:6.

The objection of Ratzinger to Co-redemptrix as contrary to language of Scripture at least, is also applicable to Mother of God though he dare not go that far.

, when asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).

He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306

[Syncro]

This Born again nonsense as you use it is a concept that stems from a misinterpretation of the Bible why do you presume I should accept that it's correct in order to refute it, a logically impossible thing to do. I find it ridiculous that you and our fellow heretics think that once saved always saved.

About this "Born again" nonsence, as you call it.

From the New Testament of the Bible, KJV John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

14,15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

And to further bring the Truth out, there is this from John 10

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Jesus made a pretty strong emphasis about born again Christians having eternal life, being saved.

To the extent that Jesus said NO ONE can pluck them out of His hand, and to make sure that is clear to you, Jesus also said no man may pluck them out of His Father's hand.

So you pronounce those that believe this Word of God "heretics."

If you don't accept those scriptures from the Word of God, does that mean you think Jesus is a heretic?

That will not turn out well for you, Mr. Cuban.

[WVKayaker]

I think I may have found the picture of our FRiend. Is that you, Verga?

[MamaB]

Do you honestly think there is evidence left of every Biblical person?

[verga]

The Catholic God died on the cross.
That’s not the God of Scripture.
The body of the second person of the Trinity died on the cross, thus Jesus tasted death and by experiencing it, is able to set us free from its power.
That hardly means that GOD died.
I guess the Catholic God is not immortal or eternal.

Don't read an ything into this, don't wist my words. each word means exactly what it says, and only what it says.
The Trinity is made up of three distinct separate persons. These persons are God the Father, God the Son (Jesus, the second person of the Trinity), and God the Holy Spirit.

These three persons while completely separate share one nature. This is a divine nature. Each of them is fully capable of acting separately from the others, yet these actions are always in full accord with each other. This full accord was how God the Father was able to send His Son for our redemption, and Jesus was able to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all truth.

Now Jesus as a separate person was able to fully posses two natures. A divine nature, and a separate fully human nature. He was fully God and fully man. This fully human nature shared the same human emotions as every other human, but was cognizant of His fate and able to overcome His fears through faith in the Father. (See the garden of Gethsemane.)

This second person of the Trinity did die on the cross and it was indeed God that did die. As several of you are so fond of saying it was only through the shedding of blood that we could be redeemed. Millions of humans had died before Him yet none of them could redeem us. It had to be the death of God the Son, second person of the Trinity.

Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac was the precedent that set the stage for this. God the Father had to be not only willing to let His Son die but actually had to let His Son die for the redemption to occur.

Note: I will not be responding to any of the typical stupid or smart aleck comments I expect to arise from this post. If you have something intelligent to say I will respond. Anything that contains the usual "Prove it from scripture" comments will be ignored.

[daniel1212]

Ever notice how the catholic ignores the original languages when it doesn't fit their theology or agenda?

Like priest for presbyteros/elder. Or claimed that what the original languages say when that is a specious claim. Ever hear that kecharitomene means Mary was uniquely filled with grace meaning sinless? Versus ..

[verga]

Just got back from taking the boys for their nightly constitutional (The girls are two dainty, delicate and ladylike to go out on a night like this) It was freezing, literally. We had our first real snow fall this afternoon. I made Venison goulash tonight for dinner. I will be taking the left overs for lunch tomorrow and the wife will be taking it for dinner (Stupid second shift.)

[HossB86]

Now Jesus as a separate person was able to fully posses two natures. A divine nature, and a separate fully human nature.

Not sure, but that might get you in trouble with your church...something bout Nestorianism....

If you could stop right there and NOT claim that Jesus' mother Mary bore God, you'd be okay.

Hoss

[MamaB]

Yeah, bless their little hearts.

[ealgeone]

We had a good ham bone in our soup beans. I like a ham bone in potato soup, too. But alas there are factions. The ham vs non-ham factions, as well as the relatively clear (but crowded) broth containing chunks of potato, vs the blenderized kind.

If it's homemade I don't care!

But we live in peace! Pass the cornbread!

Amen Mrs. D!

[verga]

About this "Born again" nonsence, as you call it.

The Cuban is spot on dead nuts correct.
Born "from Above" Vs. "Again. The Greek word Anothon occurs exactly 12 times in 12 verses in the New Testament. The five words we are concerned with are Anothon which the Catholics contend means "From above" and the Fundies contend means again. The second word is Apanow, which means above/ over.

The third word is Palon- that really does mean again. Deuteron is fourth and that means secondly.The fifth word is Anagennao. This literally means to be born again and occurs exactly twice in the Bible and that is in 1Peter 1:3 and 1 Peter 12:23: If the Protestants are correct when we look at each of these verses we should be able to substitute either word and have it make perfect sense. I have included several verses that use the word Palon to document the common use of that word. You will also notice that in John 3:4 that Nicodemus does not use either Palon or Anothon, but rather Deuteron, meaning secondly or second.

Matt 27:50 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.

Matt 27:51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anthon) to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split.

Mark 15:38 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above anthon) to bottom. Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source anthon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anthon)."

John 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"

John 3:31 The one who comes from above (Anthon) is above (Anthon) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).

John 19:11 Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anthon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin."

John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anthon) down.

Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anthon) From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion.

Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anthon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)?

James 1: 17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anthon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.

James 3: 15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anthon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.

James 3: 17But the wisdom from above (Anthon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity.

1 Peter 1:23 23You have been born anew,(Anagennao) not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God,

All 12 verses with the Greek Translation. Plus the actual use of the word Greek words for “born again” (Anagennao)

Matt 27:50 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. (Jesus did not cry out from above, he cried out a second time)

Mat 27:50 o de ihsouv palin kraxav fwnh megalh afhken to pneuma

Matt 27:51And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anothon) to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,(The veil was not torn "again" it was torn from top to bottom)

Mat 27:51kai idou to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh ap eiv duo apo anwqen ewv katw eiv duo kai h gh eseisqh kai ai petrai esxisqhsan

Mark 15:38 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above Anothon) to bottom. (See above, no pun intended)

Mar 15:38 kai to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh eiv duo ap apo anwqen ewv katw

Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source Anothon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,(This is the only verse that you could conceivably substitute "Again", but the colloquial "From their source makes better sense)

Luke 1:3 edoxe edoxen kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin akribwv kaqexhv soi grayai kratiste qeofile

John 3: 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anothon)."(Verse in contention, no comment required)

John 3:3 apekriqh o ihsouv kai eipen autw amhn amhn legw soi ean mh tiv gennhqh anwqen ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou

John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" (Here is where the Prots really put their foot in it. Nicodemus never says again (Palon) he says Secondly (Deuteron)

John 3:4 legei prov auton o o nikodhmov pwv dunatai anqrwpov gennhqhnai gerwn wn mh dunatai eiv thn koilian thv mhtrov autou deuteron eiselqein kai gennhqhnai

John 3:31The one who comes from above (Anothon) is above (Apanow) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).(Those that come" again" are "again" all, Makes no sense at all.)

Joh 3:31 o anwqen erxomenov epanw pantwn estin o wn ek thv ghv ek thv ghv estin kai ek thv ghv lalei o ek tou ouranou erxomenov epanw epanw pantwn estin estin

John 19:11Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anothon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin." (Pilate was not given power again, he was given it from above, God allowed him to have power)

John 19:11 apekriqh autw o ihsouv ouk eixev exousian oudemian kat emou oudemian ei mh hn soi dedomenon soi anwqen dia touto o paradouv paradidouv me soi meizona amartian exei

John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anothon) down. (The tunic was not woven again, it was woven from the top down)

John 19:23 oi oun stratiwtai ote estaurwsan ton ihsoun elabon ta imatia autou kai epoihsan tessara merh ekastw stratiwth merov kai ton xitwna hn de o xitwn arafov arrafov ek twn anwqen ufantov di olou

Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anothon, From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion. (They did not know about Paul "again" they new about him from the beginning)

Act 26:5 proginwskontev me anwqen ean qelwsi qelwsin marturein oti kata thn akribestathn airesin thv hmeterav qrhskeiav ezhsa farisaiov

Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anothon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)? (The phrase "from above" clearly does not fit here)

Gal 4:9 nun de gnontev qeon mallon de gnwsqentev upo qeou pwv epistrefete palin epi ta asqenh kai ptwxa stoixeia oiv palin anwqen douleuein qelete

James 1:17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anothon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. (Is the gift coming "again", no it is coming from God, who is "From above")

Jas 1:17 pasa dosiv agaqh kai pan dwrhma teleion anwqen estin katabainon apo tou patrov twn fwtwn par w ouk eni parallagh h trophv aposkiasma

James 3:15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anothon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. (See Previous)

Jas 3:15 ouk estin auth h sofia anwqen katerxomenh alla all epigeiov yuxikh daimoniwdhv

James 3:17 But the wisdom from above (Anothon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. (Again the wisdom is "from above", not "again")

Jas 3:17 h de anwqen sofia prwton men agnh estin epeita eirhnikh epieikhv eupeiqhv mesth eleouv kai karpwn agaqwn adiakritov kai anupokritov

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again (Anagennao) to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 Peter 1:3 Ev̱logi̱tós o Theós kai Patí̱r tou Kyríou i̱mó̱n Ii̱soú Christoú , o opoíos sýmfo̱na me to méga éleos mas ékane na anagennao se mia zo̱ntaní̱ elpída méso̱ ti̱s anástasi̱s tou Ii̱soú Christoú apó tous nekroús ,

1 Peter 1:23 23 You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God,

1 Peter 1:23 Anagennao ouk ek sporas phthart alla aphthartou dia logou zontos theou kai menontos eis ton aiona

Conclusion: The only reasonable definition of the word "Anthon" is "From above/ from the source or beginning", There is a perfectly good word for "born again", Anagennao. Neither Nicodemus, nor Jesus use that word, instead Nicodemus uses Deuteron. Nicodemus apparent confusion results from Jesus' use of the word "Born" not from “Above" Anothon, which was the word that Jesus used.

[daniel1212]

Why should I listen to the heresy and blasphemy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Likely the RC answer is bcz Rome said so. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

How dare you deny Roman autocracy!

[HossB86]

Likely the RC answer is bcz Rome said so. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

How dare you deny Roman autocracy!

:D

Pegged it...again!

Hoss

[HossB86]

Born from above = Born again.

You can gather as much by Nicodemus' question about re-entering his mother's womb.

Why Roman Catholics strain at gnats and swallow camels is beyond me.

Hoss

[verga]

Apparently you did not read the post.