You persist in railing against an assertion that NO ONE, EVER, EVER, EVER has made. Namely, that Mary pre-existed God the Son. Only an idiot would think that.
Mary conceived God the Son in her womb, and bore him. This makes her his mother. These events occurred in time, approximately 2,016 years ago.
Because Mary has a son who is God, Mary is the mother of God. God the Father is not Mary’s son, so Mary is NOT the mother of God the Father. God the Holy Spirit is not Mary’s son, so she is NOT the mother of God the Holy Spirit.
God the Son is Mary’s son, so she is the mother of God the Son. This makes the following statement true: Mary is the mother of God.
If you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, then you NECESSARILY deny that her Son is God. I.e., you necessarily deny that her son, Jesus Christ, is God.
So why not use the Biblical term and call Him Jesus?
Seems a lot simpler and that is the way the Holy Bible likes it.
Jesus came so that you could have life, and life more abundantly.
Take up your cross and follow him.
Well, here's on of your own idiots, right on this thread...
To: MHGinTN
So where did you get a seminary degree that does not include some training in logic?
Irrelevant. Christianity is in question here. The teachings are in question.
Can a woman be the physical mother of someone who pre-existed her?
Yes, the only person I know where this is so is Mary. This is because God does not exist in time. So saying that He existed before Mary conceived Him is inaccurate. Time has no meaning to the God who created all of the beginning and ending of creation in a single act. Once again, the Motherhood of Mary does not make her the sole author of the existence of Jesus. Motherhood does not imply sole authorship to begin with.
741 posted on 1/5/2016, 4:24:18 PM by Bayard
Excuse me, but I was not "railing".
It appears that you may be, though.
The title "Mother of God" when lacking extra explanation which limits that to be mother of the incarnate Christ, is left with imply (at the very least) that Mary existed prior to God, or that she was His "mother" prior to her own self being born. From God's own view, perhaps that is. From our own more limited viewpoints, rather stuck as we are within the timelines of our own existences, it simply could not be that she became pregnant and birthed a child prior to herself being in physical existence.
The term Theotokus (more literally translated into English as "God Bearer", than Mother of God) when it is insisted be used across the board implies that she is mother of that second "person" of the Trinity, instead of in more limited fashion ---be mother of the earthly incarnation of that "second person" of the Trinity.
Did you catch that distinction?
It is fair for one to speak towards the physical side of "things" in this, for among what else is said to be of utmost importance, is that Christ, the begotten son of God, came to this earthly, physical realm -- in the flesh.
Much of the basis for objection and push-back on towards the term "Mother of God" occurring here in regards to Mary, is due to the generally obvious transference of what role Mary played as for the physical Incarnation of that second person of the Trinity to be casually applied to extend and persist in Heavenly realm unto this present day, inducing the fervently pious towards speculation and creation of defined one-going role for "Mary" far beyond and most nearly entirely outside of the monotheistic outlooks of the the original generations' Christians.
But I think I'm done trying to get this point across, for the time being.
Go ahead though -- rant and rave (and rail) on, to your heart's content.
Hail Mary; Mother of 1/3 of GOD...