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. 

[Arthur McGowan]

If Mary is the mother of God it would be impossible that she is not the mother of the Trinity...

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Therefore, Mary is the mother of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

Jesus is not the Trinity.

Therefore, Mary is not the mother of the Trinity.

[Iscool]

It's 88 F here. I should walk two blocks to the beach. I can't handle the heat.

I hope you don't get any Turkey again next year...

[Arthur McGowan]

No Protestant on FR has ever shown where Scripture teaches that EVERY revealed truth is found explicitly taught in Scripture.

If sola scriptura is not taught in Scripture, then sola scriptura is self-contradictory.

[Iscool]

You cannot separate His person from His two natures.

His body can and was separated from his natures...

[HossB86]

.... we have one Catechism.

Yeah. The CCC. That teaches falsehoods directly AGAINST Scripture (see CCC 969... there is ONE mediator between God and men -- Jesus according to 1 Tim. 2:5. CCC teaches Mary as a Mediatrix... this is heresy). OH --- and CCC 841 that teaches that Catholics and Muslims adore the "same, merciful God." -- But Muslims don't worship God... they worship the false god Allah... yet the CCC teaches that Catholics adore the same "God" as Muslims.

Sure you want to stick with that?

Hoss

[HossB86]

No Protestant on FR has ever shown where Scripture teaches that EVERY revealed truth is found explicitly taught in Scripture.

If sola scriptura is not taught in Scripture, then sola scriptura is self-contradictory.

No Protestant has to do any such thing... because Sola Scriptura does not teach that every revealed truth is taught in Scripture; it teaches that everything we need to know about salvation and living a Christian life, and spiritual matters IS found in scripture. You're the one who's continually making a Straw Man and arguing with him.

It's already been posted so many times, but here you go, Arthur, just for you so you can flush out your headgear and get with the program:

From ligonier.org:
"The Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that "scientific truth," for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture--but Scripture is a "more sure Word," standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is "more sure," according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That--no more, no less--is what sola Scriptura means.

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." -- Westminster Confession of Faith

This excerpt is taken from John MacArthur's contribution in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible."

Now... even your church's first Pope wrote about it. Why do you complain? Oh, that's right: your church makes up an erroneous definition and the attacks it relentlessly, all the time acting in error. Go back and read the definition again and reconcile it to what you just wrote.

Hoss

[MHGinTN]

You asserted, "Many are called, few are chosen....Christ established a churcr which He intended should be followed." And with that we see your problem. Let me illustrate using more scripture:

"Faithful is He that calleth you, for He will also do it; many are called but few are chosen>"

Now, can you see why so few are THE Chosen? ... For a catholic it is so very hard to get this simple Truth ... so few are the Chosen because so few will let Him do it! And here's the practical application: is your spiritual problem attached to a drinking problem, an anger problem, a pornography problem, a chronic lying problem, etc.? To the degree that you take that to Him for His dealing with that problem, He will change you from the inside out; He will raise His babies up in the Way that they should go. BUT, if you continue in the problem not taking the problem to Him for His cure, thinking you can be good enough to be a member in His family by your efforts and the absolution imagined you receive from a priest, well, the problem remains in your heart, your behavior mechanism, festering and oozing out, never cured. Faithful is He that calleth you for He will also do it.

Just so you know, I have catholic acquaintances who have become so desperate that even they took their problem to Jesus despite the priestly assignments. They are the ones being transformed into the image of The Son.

[lupie]

...Unlike Protestants where each pastor gets a say we have one Catechism.

Do you really believe that every single Protestant pastor does not subscribe to a catechism? Or are you just repeating something you heard that tickled your ears without checking on it yourself?

Speaking of which, why have you not responded to the challenge I made to you to PROVE there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations?

[lupie]

Your funny

Did you mean to be funny? Or did you mean:
You're funny? (as in You are funny) or
Your funny bone? or
Your funny bunny? or
Your funny nose? or what??

[lupie]

But you still insinuate that someone who has an intellectual disability is incapable of having a saving faith. And that is very sad and very wrong, for they are just as much made in His image as anyone is.

[HossB86]

Maybe he needs to read Matthew 18:3.

D'oh! Dang it! I keep forgetting that RCs really don't rely on Scripture. Sorry.

Hoss

[lupie]

:)

[Bayard]

Or her parents not being the grandparents of God and so forth back to Adam and Eve, and the Jews and Romans murderers of God. You are simply refusing to see the point..

No you're not seeing my point. The divinity of Jesus although uncreated and not made is not in question when one says Mary the Mother of God. That is a misshapen understanding of what it means to be a mother.

Of course there is a way to qualify it, as the Holy Spirit does, as this birth was no ordinary birth, yet MoD is almost always used without any qualification and as part of the .

Scripture does say it was no ordinary birth precisely because Jesus is the Incarnate God. One person with two natures. That is not unscripturual unless you're wedded to the idea that the Trinity is not a valid term, and the Bible should be untranslated. The definition of the terms is contained within the statement mother of God. Its not ambiguous unless one believes Jesus divinity is ambiguous. It points to what reality is incredible about the birth of Christ, namely that he is divine.

This is why generations must should call her blessed (LK 1:48)

And again, this makes Jews and Romans murderers of God, God-killers, which also can be said in a qualified sense as technically correct,

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she declared in Lk 1:41-43:

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord (Kyrios) should come to me?

The divinity of Jesus is not a technically. Jesus is unambiguously God. Mary is unambiguously "Mother of the Kyrios, the Lord God." (Lk 1:43) His sacrifice is unambiguous. Jesus is unambiguously fully God and fully man. He is one person with two natures. Do you not believe in Christ's crucifixion as the means for mankind's salvation? If His nature was ambiguous, His sacrifice would therefore be ambiguous.

I rejection the formal title MoG we are not denying that Mary gave birth to the second person of the Trinity no matter how often you resort to trying to charge this in order to almost demand she be called by this title as well as be given all the hyper-exaltion that Spirit of God nowhere provides in Scripture.

The Second Person is Jesus and is God. His union of two natures in one person is not ambiguous. The Motherhood of Mary as Mother of the person Jesus also means she is the Mother of God. Since Jesus has ever not been God. This is why, Elizabeth declared it

But Scripture is only an abused servant for many RCs in wresting it to support of Rome. Oh that's rich, considering the Church wrote it, and protected it for 1500 years before you johnny come lately's rebelled to wallow now in ignorance of the basic truths of Christianity. Not even Martin Luther rejected the title of Mary as Mother of God, because he agree'd that it was an inseparable reality that Jesus is God and Man, which Mary as Mother of God points to.

[Bayard]

His body can and was separated from his natures...

In what way is the person Jesus separated from his body without it being Adoptionism, or Patripassionism. If Nestorianism is your thinking, than this too means God did not really assume humanity.

[Bayard]

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

It is not the only title. The reason Mother of God is effective and useful is firstly because it is true, and secondly because people who deny it do so on basis that obscure the salvation of mankind.

Mary is the Mother of the "Kyrios," the Lord God and Savior. (Lk 1:43)

[Syncro]

Your (sic) funny

Just pointing the misguided souls stuck in the muck of false beliefs towards the Kingdom of God.

Funny huh?

King James Bible Matthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat

Take a look to the right and left as you go down your path.

What do you see?Lots of stuff can fit on that wide path.

Statues, icons, assumed Catholic Mary (perhaps in a picture in a caucus thread floating in the sky at the same tinme standing on the heads of babies,) sinless Mary, still a virgin Mary, Mary denying the marriage bed to her husband, popes that fathered another pope while celibate, a pope who loved hearing the screams of his enemy screaming while being tortured, Mary lifted up to supplanting Jesus for salvation, endless ritual, purgatory, turning Jesus into a piece of bread and sticking it in a fancy gold frame and so you can sit there adoring it while Jesus is looking on shaking his head, holy water, condescending attitudes towards born again Christians, the body of Christ is the Catholic Church, I could go on and on would you like links?

1 Corinthians 1:18-31King James Version (KJV)

¹⁸ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

¹⁹ For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

²⁰ Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

²¹ For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

²² For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

²³ But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

²⁴ But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

²⁵ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

²⁶ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

²⁷ But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

²⁸ And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

²⁹ That no flesh should glory in his presence.

³⁰ But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

³¹ That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

There's that pesky Bible again.

It's pretty clear, needs no interpretation if you look at it through the eyes of the Holy Spirit's guidenance.

All are welcome on the narrow path to salvation and a personal relationship with Jesus but you must give up your life to obtain Eternal Life with God. (scripture reference available upon request)

[The Cuban]

Why do you keep quoting to a badly translated version of the Bible btw?

[Bayard]

I guess its proper to enumerate a summation of points here.

1. Jesus is unambiguously God.
2. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
3. Mary is the Mother of God.

(IS 9:6-7, Jn 1:1, Jn 1:14, Lk 1:43, Lk 1:32, I have plenty more)
To deny the third point is to deny a reality of the first point. Thus I’d quote (1 John 2:22)

The Title Mother of God does not imply diminished Godhead. It does imply the truth that Jesus is God. The truth is that Mary bore the Second Person of the Trinity in her womb. She shared Her humanity with Him, and gave birth to Him. She also raised Him.

That Makes her the Mother of God. The Humanity and Divinity must be communicable realities in one person that way. Its not ambiguous, it is not heretical, it is wholly Orthodox (I’ll give a nod to the Eastern Churches for whom we can thank for the struggles to retain Christianity).

[HossB86]

Why do you keep quoting to a badly translated version of the Bible btw?

Well, I guess when you've got nothing better to say, you just comment on the translation.

Pretty much says it all.

Hoss

[HossB86]

The Title Mother of God does not imply diminished Godhead. It does imply the truth that Jesus is God. The truth is that Mary bore the Second Person of the Trinity in her womb. She shared Her humanity with Him, and gave birth to Him. She also raised Him.

Which makes her the mother of Jesus. And nothing more.

Jesus IS God the Son. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are all God. Did Mary bear them all? For if Christ is God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and to claim Mary is the "Mother of God," failing to include ALL of the Godhead would seem to me to be wrong.

Hoss