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. 

[Syncro]

if you PROTEST the true church of Christ, you are a Protestant

Well then it is YOU that is the Protestant.

You can't become a part of the body of Christ until you recognize it for what it is.

It's absurd to think the BIBLICAL church that Jesus started is sitting there in Roman Catholicism.

I've given you the scriptures before, some day you will thirst for a true relationship with God.

[Syncro]

Cranmer ZWINGLI Calvin Luther Wesley et al infinitum were and are the HS?

Nice rant, no of course not.

People aren't the Holy Spirit, God is.

Good grief, get real!

[The Cuban]

I thought you said the HS gave you your interpretation of the Bible?

[Bayard]

If that’s the reason you don’t believe in sola Scriptura or the rapture then you might as well ditch the trinity, the papacy, transubstantiation, immaculate conception, etc, as well.

Again, you displayed the hypocrisy of your position, rejecting some doctrines because they are not explicitly spelled out in Scripture and accepting others even though they are not explicitly spelled out in Scripture.

You've misread my Post. I've said that was Not why Catholics do not believe in the rapture.

You are assuming that the disagreement is based on lack of finding in scripture rather than lack of finding in both elements of scripture and tradition as we'll as contradictions.

[Bayard]

Still waiting on you to explain how God can die. And why he has a mother thus making him a little bit less then eternal...

If Jesus dies Jesus is the second person of the trinity. Jesus dies on the cross in his humanity. It is also because He is one person, that God is said to have died on the Cross for sins.

This is because within the actions of one person the realities and values are communicable. The value of the action of Jesus as God-Man to suffer and die for sins is why you can say in both ways that are true. A Man died on the cross and God died on the Cross.

If there is no communication of values in the one person Jesus, there is no value in the sacrifice. He was always Fully God and Fully Man.

The value of Motherhood of Mary as Mother of God does not require her to be some kind of author of God. She only has to be the Mother of Jesus. But the Title Mother of God inherently teaches that God was Her Son, and that Jesus Is Was and Always will be the incarnate God.

Does that answer it for you?

[RobbyS]

Matthew 28:18-20.

[Syncro]

I thought you said: Cranmer ZWINGLI Calvin Luther Wesley et al infinitum were and are the HS?

If you keep getting things mixed up and don't make clear what you are saying it's impossible to debate.

I thought you said the HS gave you your interpretation of the Bible?

That seems to be your interpretation of what I said. I never said that, if you think so show me the link.

I'll wait.

[Bayard]

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.

First, that Mary is obviously not the origin of the deity of Jesus does not make her not a Mother of God. As I've been repeating ad nausea at this point. Motherhood in its definition does not entail sole authorship. The Fact that the there are two natures in Christ suffice for the definition. To be a Mother is to bear and give birth to a child. This passage (IS 7:14) suffices for the definition of Motherhood of Jesus.

The distinction that Mary is the Mother of God is not undercut by a non-mention of the word Mother in your quote from Romans. Much Like bachelor is an unmarried man a woman who conceives and bears a child is the Child's Mother. There's no way this could not be the case without saying something terribly awkward about Jesus and Salvation.

Who is Jesus? He is the Second person of the Trinity. (Heb 1:3) Jesus is God. At no time is he not God. You cannot separate His person from His two natures. He is always one Person with Two. Since Mary's Motherhood suffices for this Title.

It is also an important reminder that to say otherwise by any reason is to deny some aspect of the union of two natures in one person. No Mary is not the Sole author of the nature of God. She is the source for the flesh of Christ. But she bore a person. She gave birth to the second person of the Trinity. This is why in ad nauseam I'm forced to repeat a basic fact of Christianity.

If you deny this you deny the same reality that gives value to the meaning "God died on the Cross." Because two natures existed in the one person. Therefore, whatever is predicated of the person is predicated of the natures and vice versa.

Scripture calls us Children of God By adoption. This is because the Grace of Christ makes us like Christ, Children of God. When God looks upon His Children He sees the grace of the Holy Spirit at work making them adopted heirs(Jn 1:12-14; Romans 8:14; 1 John 3:2). Not Blasphemy, Jesus himself says something on this hinted new relationship in him (Mt 12:50; Mk 3:31).

You should come out of the cold and recognize that you have a familial relationship with God because of Jesus.

Your quotation of speculation from Cardinal Ratzinger, not doctrine, is in reference to a title I'm not discussing. It is a separate issue from the title Mother of God.

[Arthur McGowan]

Of course not. That’s a silly idea.

I said that early Christians scrupulously and enthusiastically preserved relics of the apostles, tens of thousands of martyrs, and other holy persons.

Thus, the ABSENCE of relics of Mary requires an explanation.

And the absence of any CLAIMED relics of Mary—even phony ones—requires an explanation.

In other words: Why did all the potential fraudsters REFRAIN from claiming to have a relic from Mary?

The only possible explanation is that all Christians, from the earliest days, believed a story that implied the IMPOSSIBILITY of anyone’s having a relic of Mary.

[metmom]

When this happened, did not the Deity Himself become the Incarnation of Deity?

The whole Trinity?

Or don't you believe in the Trinity and therefore God became human, as in modalism?

So you are agreeing then, that GOD died when Jesus died? Yes or no?

[metmom]

Considering the propensity of people to worship objects, it would be no surprise to me that God would not allow there to be any relics left.

God is the one who buried Moses and nobody knows where his body is and it’s clear that it’s for good reason.

[metmom]

Here are some Scripture verses that use the term *born again*.

John 3:3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:7 Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.

Oh, look at that. In this translation, the Greek is translated *born again*.

And what translation is this that translates it this way you ask?

A very good question, my FRiend.

It just so happens to be copied and pasted out of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the CATHOLIC Bible.

Imagine that. All those Catholics Bible scholars did not get the translation correct according to our resident semi-anonymous FReeper "scholars".

Isn't it interesting how Catholics sit in judgment of non-Catholics about how wrong they are for using a certain translation of Greek that their very own Catholic church uses?

That means they are sitting in judgment and condemnation of the men the Catholic church used to translate Scripture and sitting in judgment of the Catholic church authorizing that version.

Aren't we so fortunate to have all these Catholic FReepers here to straighten their church out for everyone? I didn't know they knew better than their church's hierarchy.

I didn't know they had so much latitude in interpreting Scripture themselves. 1.2 billion personal interpretations of Scripture. Every man his own pope - 1.2 billion strong........

[metmom]

LOL!!!!

GMTA

[metmom]

Well, someone has to take a hit for the team......

[metmom]

If the priest thinks that the person is not sincere in his confession, just doing it because he feels that he will be automatically forgiven, the priest might attempt to counsel with the person, but if he detects a lack of sincerity, he is free to refuse remission.

IF a priest THINKS.....

So a priest can refuse to forgive sins and ultimately send someone to hell based on nothing more than his opinion?

That's EXACTLY why Jesus would not man that kind of ultimate power over another human being. That priest is NOT God, who knows the heart.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and we've seen that play out in Catholicism over the centuries.

God Himself promises that if we confess our sins HE is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness. If He is going to do that, there's no way He'd give a priest the power to retain sins. It's going against His will for the priest to do so.

[metmom]

Do you suppose there is someone out there, who is cringing at the thought that someone, somewhere, is enjoying life?

Probably.......

[metmom]

Many are called, few are chosen....Christ established a churcr[sic] which He intended should be followed....

Wrong. Jesus never told anyone to follow His church. He told them to follow HIM.

Matthew 4:19 And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

Matthew 8:22 And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."

Matthew 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

Matthew 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Mark 1:17 And Jesus said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men."

Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

Mark 8:34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Mark 10:21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Luke 5:27 After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth. And he said to him, "Follow me."

Luke 9:23 And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Luke 9:59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."

Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

John 1:43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, "Follow me."

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

John 12:26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.

John 21:19 And after saying this he said to him, "Follow me."

John 21:22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!"

[metmom]

There's one more use of the phrase translated *born again* in the Douay-Rheims Bible.....

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God who liveth and remaineth for ever.

[metmom]

But the Title Mother of God inherently teaches that God was Her Son, and that Jesus Is Was and Always will be the incarnate God.

No, it doesn't because the word *God* means more than and is used for more than, only Jesus.

[metmom]

Who is Jesus? He is the Second person of the Trinity. (Heb 1:3) Jesus is God. At no time is he not God. You cannot separate His person from His two natures. He is always one Person with Two. Since Mary's Motherhood suffices for this Title.

The term *mother of JESUS* is the term than actually suffices to address that Title.

It is specific enough, where as the term *mother of God* is too ambiguous to automatically imply that Jesus is the One who Mary is the mother of.