Mary Mother of Jesus, not of God.

[Clare73]

.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.

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

Mary was the believing virgin woman in whose flesh was conceived the body prepared by the Spirit for the Word. He come down from heaven to dwell in that body of flesh among men, to show them the Father as He is.

And it was the Father who called Him the Son of God, not Mary: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

That holy thing was the body of flesh prepared for Him to dwell in. The Word coming down out of heaven to be the Son of God in flesh on earth was not that holy thing.

The second Adam had a body flesh prepared for His soul, even as the first Adam had a body of dust prepared for His soul to dwell in: first the sinless body and holy thing was prepared, then God breathed into it, and Adam become a living soul dwelling therein.

So also, a sinless and holy thing was prepared for the Lord Himself, in which He entered and became the Son of God dwelling therein.

Neither the living soul of Adam nor of Jesus was that body of sinless flesh, which was first made of dust, and then made of a woman.

The Son of God's body was made of flesh of a woman of the seed of David. The Son Himself was neither made nor created ever at all.

The body of Eve was also made of the flesh of Adam, even as that of Jesus from Mary.

The Son Himself and God the Word was no more the 'son' of Mary, than was Eve the 'daughter' of Adam.

Mary was a good and faithful woman of Israel who carried the holy and sinless body of Jesus and gave birth to it, not to God.

Please read this letter written from Cyril to Nestorius and tell me if there is anything you disagree with on the definition Cyril gives for the word Theostokos.

To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.

I hear that some are rashly talking of the estimation in which I hold your holiness, and that this is frequently the case especially at the times that meetings are held of those in authority. And perchance they think in so doing to say something agreeable to you, but they speak senselessly, for they have suffered no injustice at my hands, but have been exposed by me only to their profit; this man as an oppressor of the blind and needy, and that as one who wounded his mother with a sword. Another because he stole, in collusion with his waiting maid, another’s money, and had always laboured under the imputation of such like crimes as no one would wish even one of his bitterest enemies to be laden with. I take little reckoning of the words of such people, for the disciple is not above his Master, nor would I stretch the measure of my narrow brain above the Fathers, for no matter what path of life one pursues it is hardly possible to escape the smirching of the wicked, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness, and who at the last must give an account to the Judge of all.

But I return to the point which especially I had in mind. And now I urge you, as a brother in the Lord, to propose the word of teaching and the doctrine of the faith with all accuracy to the people, and to consider that the giving of scandal to one even of the least of those who believe in Christ, exposes a body to the unbearable indignation of God. And of how great diligence and skill there is need when the multitude of those grieved is so great, so that we may administer the healing word of truth to them that seek it. But this we shall accomplish most excellently if we shall turn over the words of the holy Fathers, and are zealous to obey their commands, proving ourselves, whether we be in the faith according to that which is written, and conform our thoughts to their upright and irreprehensible teaching.

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, he is also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body.

In the same manner also we conceive respecting his dying; for the Word of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible, and life and life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says, by the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he had any experience of death in his own nature (for it would be madness to say or think this), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. In like manner his flesh being raised again, it is spoken of as his resurrection, not as if he had fallen into corruption (God forbid), but because his own body was raised again.

We, therefore, confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping a man with the Word (lest this expression “with the Word” should suggest to the mind the idea of division), but worshipping him as one and the same, forasmuch as the body of the Word, with which he sits with the Father, is not separated from the Word himself, not as if two sons were sitting with him, but one by the union with the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal union as impossible or unbecoming, we fall into the error of speaking of two sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to say, that he who was properly man was honoured with the appellation of Son, and that he who is properly the Word of God, has by nature both the name and the reality of Sonship.

We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at all avail to a sound faith to hold, as some do, a union of persons; for the Scripture has not said that the Word united to himself the person of man, but that he was made flesh. This expression, however, “the Word was made flesh,” can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.

These things, therefore, I now write unto you for the love of Christ, beseeching you as a brother, and testifying to you before Christ and the elect angels, that you would both think and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churches may be preserved and the bond of concord and love continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God. Send greetings to the brothers who are with you.

Those who are with me send greetings in Christ.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Still, to speak of a "God man" when explaining the matter to people who have doubts is risky because that wording suggests to many people the idea that he is possessed of only one nature which has both human and divine characteristics.

Good point, but jesus has 2 natures, Deity and sinless humanity, and none of us will ever fully understand how that can be!

 

[U.S. Grant]

If she "bore the body," she was the child's mother in some sense of the word.

All that's necessary to do is get right what is meant by the term "Mother of God."


That sounds a lot like what gets a woman called a "mother," wouldn't you say?

That sounds a lot like what gets a woman called a "mother," wouldn't you say?

You have that right now. Natural mother to natural body.

As another pointed out, the truth is that woman gives birth to no soul nor person, but only God makes souls in His image, and clothes each soul in skin of flesh in the womb.

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

There is no mother of Christ, nor of new creatures in Christ, other than the ministry of Christ in heavenly Jerusalem. (Gal 4)

All that's necessary to do is get right what is meant by the term "Mother of God."

It doesn't matter what man says it means. What it is, is carnal minded humanist reasoning that has no Scripture to confirm as true.

The simple fact is that there is no 'Mother of God' in Scripture, and so there is no 'Mother of God' in the doctrine of Christ.

To say so is heresy without Scripture. Heresy simply being any thing taught for doctrine of God, that is not confirmed by any Scripture.

And so, believers are to reject such things as truth of God.

The truth of Scripture that the Spirit tells us, is that a virtuous faithful woman of Israel gave birth to the body of flesh dwelt in by the Lord God Yehovah, whose name would be call by Him Jesus.

The man Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh only.

Israel after the flesh is born of women only, and is not the Israel of God.

God was never made, created, nor born of a woman and so has no mother at all.

There is no Mother of God, even as their is no Mother of Israel of God.

Since there are Three what are One, each being God, then for One being God to have a Mother, then that Most must be to God and the Father.

Neither the Father nor the Son have a Mother.

When we think spiritually with the mind of Christ in reading of Scripture, we understand we are souls having bodies naturally born of natural women, but our souls are made only of God in His image and are not born of any Mother.

 

[Albion]

You have that right now. Natural mother to natural body.

Well, duh! That's what this whole deal is about--Mary is the mother of the child she bore who also was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[prodromos]

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.

That would make Her Mother also of the Father.

No. That is you is simply you reading your beliefs into Scripture.

I don't read anything about a Mother of God in Scripture, so I don't believe it.

And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

 

[prodromos]

It's another idolatrous thing to honor her as Mother of God blessed above all other women and mothers forever.

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"

Jesus Christ was not deified in His resurrection, as some say,

No one says this.

and neither is any woman deified as Mother of Christ Jesus.

No one says she is deified either.

And thank you very much. I was holding off for someone like you to teach the truth that no soul is ever born of a woman.

I did not teach any such thing, nor is it the truth.

Persons are souls with bodies: souls made by God with bodies made of a woman, which is to be covered with flesh in the woman's womb.

Our bodies and our souls are made by God.

 

[prodromos]

As another pointed out, the truth is that woman gives birth to no soul nor person, but only God makes souls in His image, and clothes each soul in skin of flesh in the womb.

That is not what I said. Continue to misrepresent me and I will report you.

 

[U.S. Grant]

That is not what I said. Continue to misrepresent me and I will report you.

No problem. I thought I was giving you due credit.

My mistake. It's what I say. Not you.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"
[quoteJesus Christ was not deified in His resurrection, as some say,

No one says this.

No one says she is deified either.

I did not teach any such thing, nor is it the truth.

Our bodies are our souls are made by God.[/QUOTE]
Our bodies are our souls are made by God.

If your corrupt mortal body is your soul. You're in deep trouble.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

There is the soul and there is the body of flesh which the soul inhabits: the body is merely the habitation for the soul.

If the lust of the flesh is still in the soul, then the soul is still dead to God, having not the Spirit of life.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Well, duh! That's what this whole deal is about--Mary is the mother of the child she bore who also was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Good. We agree. Mary was the mother of a child of flesh, not the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Whom neither she nor His brethren after the flesh believed in until after the resurrection:

And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Mother of flesh is natural and normal. 'Mother of God' is spiritual and all powerful.

There is no Omnipotent Mother of the Omnipotent One.

That is what Mariology idolatry is.

 

[prodromos]

No one says this.

No one says she is deified either.

I did not teach any such thing, nor is it the truth.

Our bodies are our souls are made by God.

I edited my post to fix a couple of typos and quotes. You may want to edit your reply.

 

[prodromos]

Well, duh! That's what this whole deal is about--Mary is the mother of the child she bore who also was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Good. We agree. Mary was the mother of a child of flesh, not the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

You claim you are in agreement and then point blank deny the critical part of his statement.

 

[prodromos]

Mother of flesh is natural and normal. 'Mother of God' is spiritual and all powerful.

No, it is the fact that Mary is only human that her Son is also human. "Mother of God" is a christological statement. It is all about who Christ is, not Mary.

There is no Omnipotent Mother of the Omnipotent One.

No one claims otherwise. You are attacking a strawman.

That is what Mariology idolatry is.

Clearly you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

 

[disciple Clint]

I can see how you would make the mistake of thinking the teaching somehow denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, but then you would be accusing Scripture of saying so.

The Word was made flesh. He was made of a woman. Adam's body was made of the dust, and then when God breathed into that body, he became a living soul. Jesus is the second Adam and a body was prepared for Him.

The difference between all other mankind and the first and second Adam, is that the first Adam became a living soul after a body was prepared for him, and the second Adam was the Word Himself come down from heaven to dwell among us in likeness of sinful flesh.

Jesus was God the Word in flesh and now His flesh and bone is His church on earth.

He inhabited a body in the days of His flesh, and now He inhabits a body in the days our flesh.

Mary was the mother of the flesh and bone baby boy, not the mother of the Word as a baby boy come in the flesh.

I think you are missing the fact that Jesus was 100% human just like the rest of us, He had all the same things we have and was made in exactly the same way we were, Mary was His mother the same as we each have a mother, and since she gave birth to Jesus who is 100% God she is the mother of God, birth is given to a person, not a body and the person of Jesus was 100% man and 100% God.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hard to believe that someone wants to fight this battle again.

What is being offered is the Scriptural proof that God has no mother.

Mary was mother to Jesus after the flesh only. She gave natural birth to Christ only.

A body of her flesh was prepared for Christ by the Holy Spirit, and He came down from heaven to dwell therein.

Eve's body was made of Adam, and yet Adam was not father to Eve.

Councils of men can think and say whatever they want.

There is Scripture for Jesus Christ being the true God and God.

No Scripture for any Mother of God.

I'll risk blaspheming man's 'theotokos', and let man risk their idolatry.

Yes the battle was decided back in 431 AD. Mary is the mother of GOD.
"The phrase mother of God traces back to the third century and continues to be used in some liturgical churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. One of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos (literally, “God-bearer” or “the one who gives birth to God”) in reference to Mary. That council’s use of Theotokos was meant to counter the heresy of Nestorianism, which cleaved the nature and person of Christ in two: Christ’s human and divine natures were completely divergent and unconnected. According to Nestorius, Mary gave birth to Christ but not to God; Mary was the mother of His humanity, which was totally distinct from His divinity—Jesus was two persons sharing one body, essentially. The Council of Ephesus affirmed the full deity of Christ and unity of His person by saying that Mary did indeed bear God in her womb. Mary is the “mother of God” in the sense that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God. The Whttps://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-mother-God-theotokos.htmlord became flesh (John 1:14), and Mary mothered Him.

 

[prodromos]

The title of "Mother of God" given to Mary is a defence of the doctine of the incarnation, that God became man. It relies on people correctly understanding that Mary is human and nothing more. Knowing that Mary is human, it follows that her offspring is also human, but because Jesus is God, it also follows that Mary is the mother of God.

 

[prodromos]

Elizabeth, when filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary the mother of her Lord. She does not call her the mother of the flesh of her Lord. Her Lord is God.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Please read this letter written from Cyril to Nestorius and tell me if there is anything you disagree with on the definition Cyril gives for the word Theostokos.

To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.

I hear that some are rashly talking of the estimation in which I hold your holiness, and that this is frequently the case especially at the times that meetings are held of those in authority. And perchance they think in so doing to say something agreeable to you, but they speak senselessly, for they have suffered no injustice at my hands, but have been exposed by me only to their profit; this man as an oppressor of the blind and needy, and that as one who wounded his mother with a sword. Another because he stole, in collusion with his waiting maid, another’s money, and had always laboured under the imputation of such like crimes as no one would wish even one of his bitterest enemies to be laden with. I take little reckoning of the words of such people, for the disciple is not above his Master, nor would I stretch the measure of my narrow brain above the Fathers, for no matter what path of life one pursues it is hardly possible to escape the smirching of the wicked, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness, and who at the last must give an account to the Judge of all.

But I return to the point which especially I had in mind. And now I urge you, as a brother in the Lord, to propose the word of teaching and the doctrine of the faith with all accuracy to the people, and to consider that the giving of scandal to one even of the least of those who believe in Christ, exposes a body to the unbearable indignation of God. And of how great diligence and skill there is need when the multitude of those grieved is so great, so that we may administer the healing word of truth to them that seek it. But this we shall accomplish most excellently if we shall turn over the words of the holy Fathers, and are zealous to obey their commands, proving ourselves, whether we be in the faith according to that which is written, and conform our thoughts to their upright and irreprehensible teaching.

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, he is also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body.

In the same manner also we conceive respecting his dying; for the Word of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible, and life and life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says, by the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he had any experience of death in his own nature (for it would be madness to say or think this), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. In like manner his flesh being raised again, it is spoken of as his resurrection, not as if he had fallen into corruption (God forbid), but because his own body was raised again.

We, therefore, confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping a man with the Word (lest this expression “with the Word” should suggest to the mind the idea of division), but worshipping him as one and the same, forasmuch as the body of the Word, with which he sits with the Father, is not separated from the Word himself, not as if two sons were sitting with him, but one by the union with the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal union as impossible or unbecoming, we fall into the error of speaking of two sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to say, that he who was properly man was honoured with the appellation of Son, and that he who is properly the Word of God, has by nature both the name and the reality of Sonship.

We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at all avail to a sound faith to hold, as some do, a union of persons; for the Scripture has not said that the Word united to himself the person of man, but that he was made flesh. This expression, however, “the Word was made flesh,” can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.

These things, therefore, I now write unto you for the love of Christ, beseeching you as a brother, and testifying to you before Christ and the elect angels, that you would both think and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churches may be preserved and the bond of concord and love continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God. Send greetings to the brothers who are with you.

Those who are with me send greetings in Christ.

He was actually doing pretty on describing God living as a man of flesh and blood on earth, which I can comment on if you like, but I suppose this is what you are asking about:

This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.

Whatever holy 'Fathers' he's talking about, it certainly isn't the holy apostles, who never wrote such a thing in Scripture.

Continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God.

No doubt these 'Priests' must be those 'Fathers'.

Here he has departed from Scripture and dived into carnal thinking, trying to rationalize something that isn't true.

It is true that God did not have His beginning from the womb of woman, except to be that of a man of flesh and blood on earth, but it is not true that the woman remained a holy virgin, nor is it true that holy thing born of her flesh was the Word, nor did it make her holy.

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

Neither Mary nor any other person on earth was ever made holy as He is holy, except by being born again of the Spirit of God and His holy seed, which is Christ in us the hope of glory.

A believing virtuous virgin woman of Israel gave birth to a holy thing: the body prepared for the Word by the Spirit, which the Word came into and was called the Son of God, by name Jesus.

God is not a thing. The body He inhabited was that holy thing, not being corrupted by the natural seed of man.

Mary is not the Mother of God, no more than the Son of God is the son of David:

Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Carnal man only sees the flesh. Them with the mind of Christ according to Scripture see only the things of the Spirit: the soul made by God to inhabit the flesh born of a woman.

When we think of Christ, we should not be thinking of a son of Mary at all anymore:

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

It doesn't matter one single bit pertaining to salvation and justification of God, who gave birth to the babe in which the Son dwelt, except as a matter of historical record in Scripture.

I do not walk with the Lord daily thinking of Mary at all, much less idolizing some 'Mother of God' that is no mother, even as the gods are no gods.

 

[U.S. Grant]

The title of "Mother of God" given to Mary is a defence of the doctine of the incarnation, that God became man. It relies on people correctly understanding that Mary is human and nothing more. Knowing that Mary is human, it follows that her offspring is also human, but because Jesus is God, it also follows that Mary is the mother of God.

it also follows that Mary is the mother of God.

Carnal minds can think so, because it certainly seems rational in a human way.

But Scripture doesn't say so, and it has absolutely nothing to do with being born again, living for God, and attaining to the resurrection of the dead.

And we both know there are many, beginning with them that made up this stuff, who are in idolatry over the 'Mother of God'.

If it were just a simple error of humanist rationalizing, then it wouldn't be such a big heretical deal in Christianity, overthrowing the faith of many who have corrupted much Scripture to try and believe it and teach it to others.

Mary was not the mother of Christ, even as Christ was not the son of David:

Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

He was made of a woman in the likeness of sinful flesh, and only according to that likeness was He made of the seed of David.

Mary was the mother of a baby boy of flesh and blood called Jesus, and the Son who dwelt in that flesh knew exactly Who and where He was the whole time, and that woman was not His 'Mother' nor mother.

Although she no doubt mothered Him pretty good as a child. But once He began His ministry to the full, she wasn't even that anymore:

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

Mary was the mother of a body, which is all any mother brings into the world.

It is only God who makes souls and wraps them in flesh in the womb.

We honor them as mother and father, but we do not honor them as our makers: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Calling any woman mother of God is to make her a maker of God. It's called idolatry.